Skip to content


Red Hat Has a Hornet in its Bonnet

August 25, 2009

Posted by: Glyn Moody


Red Hat was the first major GNU/Linux company, which gave it a number of advantages, including the fact that it was able to sweep up many of the top kernel hackers to work for it, as well as enabling it to raise significant amounts of dosh with its IPO, which benefitted from a certain novelty value when it came out.

Since then, it's used that money to make a number of shrewd acquisitions, notably JBoss, and focussed increasingly on the enterprise market, where it seems to be doing very nicely, thank you.

All these threads come together nicely in Red Hat's latest launch:

HornetQ is an open source project to build a multi-protocol, embeddable, very high performance, clustered, asynchronous messaging system.

HornetQ is an example of Message Oriented Middleware (MoM) .

HornetQ is Red Hat's flagship Java messaging system.

HornetQ flows straight from Red Hat's JBoss acquisition:

During most of its development the HornetQ code-base was known as JBoss Messaging 2.0.

We decided to rename it and spin it off as an independent project since it differs in a great many ways from JBoss Messaging 1.x and we did not want to confuse JBoss Messaging 1.x with JBoss Messaging 2.x.

The vast majority of the code base of HornetQ is different to the code base of JBoss Messaging 1.x.

JBoss Messaging 1.x continues to be known under the name of JBoss Messaging and the project is now in maintenance mode only, with all new messaging development happening on the HornetQ project.

HornetQ is obviously a serious bit of enterprise code, and it's great to see Red Hat continuing to expand in this area. The more high-quality software there is in this domain, the more businesses will take open source seriously.

It's also good to see Red Hat focussing on one sector, rather than trying to be all things to all people. It's something that other GNU/Linux companies need to bear in mind as they grow and evolve. The last thing the free software ecosystem needs is internecine conflict in the enterprise sector.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!

<<newer entry | back to blogs indexolder entry>>

Advert

close

Email this article to a friend or colleague:




PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.

close
  • This article is now being printed.
close

What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.


Characters remaining:

close

Click below to add 'Red Hat Has a Hornet in its Bonnet' to your blog.



If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.

If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.

What is this?

Comments received

malcolm in St Louis said on Wednesday, 26 August 2009

It looks like a combination of multi-transport or multi-protocol frameworks that have been prevalent in enterprise framework specs for years.

If you use it to enable mixed protocols in your enterprise it would be another level of performance robbing abstraction.

You are better using only a very narrow range of transports or protocols. So I am not sure about real value to the user of these options. For RH marketing it offers more checks-offs in a brain dead product feature analysis that many gurus do to evaluate products.

Performance users would be better stripping it all out and using only one or two.

malcolm in St Louis said on Wednesday, 26 August 2009

It looks like a combination of multi-transport or multi-protocol frameworks that have been prevalent in enterprise framework specs for years.

If you use it to enable mixed protocols in your enterprise it would be another level of performance robbing abstraction.

You are better using only a very narrow range of transports or protocols. So I am not sure about real value to the user of these options. For RH marketing it offers more checks-offs in a brain dead product feature analysis that many gurus do to evaluate products.

Performance users would be better stripping it all out and using only one or two.

Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Presumably they had some demand for it or they wouldn't have gone to all the trouble.

dude said on Tuesday, 24 November 2009

see review http://www.codesmell.org/blog/2009/11/maiden-flight-with-a-hornet/

Advert

WHITE PAPERS

  • Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
    Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees.
  • Phishing for victims
    This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
  • Challenges and opportunities of PCI
    The control framework implicit in the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) provides an enterprise structure for improving operational, security, and audit performance.
  • Social CRM comes of age
    Who is this “social customer”? What strategies and tools does the new breed of CRM provide to do something about this?
  • Risk Management: Protect and Maximize Stakeholder Value
    What has held organisations back from a broader adoption of risk management programs?
*