Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software Businesses Communications Red Hat Software

Red Hat Spins Off JBoss 2.x As HornetQ 50

Several sources are reporting that Red Hat has spun off the 2.x release of the JBoss messaging protocol as HornetQ. The 1.x version of JBoss is still being supported in maintenance mode and will continue to be known by its original name. "HornetQ is an open source project to build a multi-protocol, embeddable, high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system. HornetQ is an example of Message Oriented Middleware. [...] HornetQ is designed with flexibility in mind: It's elegant POJO based design has minimal third party dependencies: Run HornetQ as a stand-alone messaging broker, run it in integrated in your favorite JEE application server, or run it embedded inside your own application. It's up to you."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Spins Off JBoss 2.x As HornetQ

Comments Filter:
  • Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @04:34AM (#29198561)

    What a badly written and misleading headline.

    • by fatp ( 1171151 )
      I think it's simply wrong. I don't think anyone will think JBoss 2.x means JBoss Messaging 2.x, instead of JBoss App Server 2.x (even it is very very old)
  • Just what the world needed.

    Is there something special about this that the 101 others around can't do or is it just a Me-Too product for Redhat?

    • by nacturation ( 646836 ) * <nacturation @ g mail.com> on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @05:03AM (#29198733) Journal

      Just what the world needed.

      Is there something special about this that the 101 others around can't do or is it just a Me-Too product for Redhat?

      JBoss MQ goes back to 2002 [sourceforge.net] and was renamed to JBoss Messaging and is now being renamed to HornetQ. Given that it's been around for so long, you should instead ask most of your 101 other ones why they are Me-Too products.

      • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        "Given that it's been around for so long"

        Yeah, right. Go look up the 2 main ones used in the Fortune 100s - Websphere (formally) MQ Series and Tibco EMS and see how long they've been around.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by nacturation ( 646836 ) *

          Yeah, right. Go look up the 2 main ones used in the Fortune 100s - Websphere (formally) MQ Series and Tibco EMS and see how long they've been around.

          I never claimed JBoss MQ has been around longest. Your initial statement was that there were 101 others and JBoss MQ is a Me-Too product for Redhat. Unless you can prove that there were 101 that came before JBoss MQ, your initial statement is bullshit.

        • Go look up the 2 main ones used in the Fortune 100s - Websphere (formally) MQ Series and Tibco EMS and see how long they've been around.

          Of course, those are also the reasons for all the new ones -- as asynchronous messaging becomes more important and more widely useful, event big, established customers for the big products in the field aren't happy with the existing options; after all, the AMQP protocol effort is essentially a collaboration of some of the biggest messaging users (particularly in the finan

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Red Hat also makes an AMQP (Another Message Queue Protocol) broker called QPid. But it seems JBoss is much, much more successful. Does the explicit message focus in HornetQ mean that Red Hat will abandon AMQP? (Ok, it's "advanced message whatever")

  • by thammoud ( 193905 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @05:35AM (#29198887)

    In 1.x, a server would hang if a client died (OS Crash, Pull the plug). That is a cardinal sin in the world of MOM. The excuse for not fixing it in 1.x was that they were using some internal networking library. 2.x looks impressive indeed, but you know what my first will be. Pull the f'ing plug.

  • by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @05:42AM (#29198929) Journal

    Wow, what an incredible advancement over erlang and tuples.

    • Except people actually use Java /ducks

      • by slim ( 1652 )

        There's no reason why you couldn't mix and match. I guess the GP is suggesting that Erlang would be a better language for writing a messaging server - or perhaps he's alluding to an existing product.

        For example, WebMethods is mostly a Java product, but its message server, sold as a reliable, high performance component, is written in C. (Note: I am not endorsing WebMethods).

        So, it might well make sense to write a clustered messaging server in Erlang, accepting client connections from Java and other languages

    • by IBBoard ( 1128019 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @06:04AM (#29199049) Homepage

      And in case people wonder what POJO is (it seems to be tagged but not answered at the moment) they're Plain Old Java Objects (i.e. standard Java objects with no additional attributes or post-processing beyond what happens to any other class).

  • Seriously. If all it is is a 'messaging protocol', why can't we just use UUCP or, say, something whose underlying compiler is stable? I've been having tremendous issues with having to install subtlely different JVM's for different applications because they cannot keep straight where the JVM's are installed, how to name them, or whether they are compatible with one different appliations. (Sun is no help with this, by the way: the 'write once, run everywhere' model for Java has been more of a 'write once, run


    • I've been having tremendous issues with having to install subtlely different JVM's for different applications because they cannot keep straight where the JVM's are installed

      I don't think this has anything to do with the language or the compiler, but more to do with the relationship between the OS maker and Sun. Sun only recently opened up and allowed less restrictive re-distribution of the JVM, so you'll see open source versions of Java included with linux distributions these days. Before that happened it

  • Just another shinny new name for a bloated server... A Jboss server needs here one MINUTE to load. the Apache Tomcat server? Just 4 seconds


    And yes, I know the Jboss have "lots of features". But nothing I cannot make by myself as needed and using a lot less memory.
    • Just another shinny new name for a bloated server... A Jboss server needs here one MINUTE to load. the Apache Tomcat server? Just 4 seconds

      That's like comparing a Geo Metro to a Cadillac and complaining that the Cadillac is so damned heavy. Oh, shit. You've made me do a car analogy. I'm so very sorry. Rest assured, someone will come along and make it even worse - it's a weird compulsion people have here.

      And yes, I know the Jboss have "lots of features". But nothing I cannot make by myself as needed and using a lot less memory.

      Ahh, now I begin to see. Let me guess... you're in your early twenties, and figure that the only code that's worth shit is what you wrote yourself?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hognoxious ( 631665 )

      Just another shinny new name for a bloated server

      There has tibia better explanation than that.

    • > A Jboss server needs here one MINUTE to load.

      I think that many people feels that a Big and Expensive (even OSS bla bla) product should take for ever to load.

      And most people didn't realize that all the apps they run just need a Web Container. Of course, there are exceptions, but apparently a lot of developers think that for whatever reason they need support for EJBs, JMS, JTA, Clustering, etc... for their JSP/JSF/Struts projects.

    • by abigor ( 540274 )

      I'm confused. What does the JBoss application server have to do with this messaging middleware product? They are completely separate.

  • I'm bewildered why "plain old Java objects" is considered a virtue, considering it still makes the middleware language-specific for something that is essentially an integration software. If all you do is Java, fine. But gambling that you'll always be married to one language seems like you're giving up too much for no gain. Perhaps developers should take a closer look at something like Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) [wikipedia.org] and implementations like RabbitMQ [rabbitmq.com] or Apache ActiveMQ [apache.org]?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Hello all-

    Just to correct a few misconceptions / errors here:

    1) HornetQ is not a "messaging protocol" as the title states, it's a messaging system, a MoM (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message-oriented_middleware), other examples of MoMs are WebsphereMQ, Tibco EMS, ActiveMQ etc

    2) HornetQ is a completely different project to JBoss Application Server - it shares zero code with JBoss AS. So any comments about JBoss Application Server start-up time are not relevant to HornetQ

    3) HornetQ is a rebranding of the

  • by Tim L Fox ( 1625503 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2009 @10:03AM (#29202045)
    Hello all-

    Just to correct a few misconceptions / errors here:

    (I'm reposting as first time it seems to have lost my comment)

    1) HornetQ is not a "messaging protocol" as the title states, it's a messaging system, a MoM (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message-oriented_middleware [wikipedia.org]), other examples of MoMs are WebsphereMQ, Tibco EMS, ActiveMQ etc

    2) HornetQ is a completely different project to JBoss Application Server - it shares zero code with JBoss Application Server. So any comments about JBoss Application Server start-up time don't apply to HornetQ - HornetQ starts up very fast!

    3) HornetQ is a rebranding of the JBoss Messaging 2.0 codebase by JBoss. The HornetQ codebase is almost completely different to JBoss Messaging 1.x and the old JBoss MQ codebase, so any comments about JBoss Messaging 1.x or JBoss MQ are not really relevant either, they're different systems.

    All of the above are actually explained in the FAQ, but I thought I'd re-iterate them here.

    Disclosure: I'm the project lead for HornetQ
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tim L Fox ( 1625503 )
      I should also add that HornetQ is released under the Apache Software License version 2.0, not the LGPL as was stated in one earlier comment.
    • by Saija ( 1114681 )
      Welcome to the new Slashdot: Even our article originating overlords are making dupes!
      Wow!
  • I think I speak for a great segment of the Slashdot readership when I say:

    WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANY OF THE ABOVE MEAN?!@

    Thank you for your time.

  • I've been to the jboss site; I've seen the HornetQ webpages. Now, after 52 years as a sysadmin, programmer, CIO, etc. I can't figure out what it is, and why I should care. I get the sense that the jargon suggests is a way for clustered computers to exchange messages to coordinate their activities, but that's a sheer guess. Would one of you who know what this product does be so kind as to explain to me what this product does, and why I should look further into it? Sorry about this rant, but this is one

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

Working...