qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rupert Smith" <rupertlssm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Qpid M2 Branching / C++ 0.9 Merging
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:34:13 GMT
In which case, 5 days sounds adequate to me. (not including the weekend!).

Rupert

On 3/7/07, Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
> My ambition for the M2 release is only to have interop at the basic AMQP
> level - that means that we will not be interoperable at the JMS level as
> this requires extensions on top of basic AMQP.  While we work those
> extensions through the AMQP process I don't think we need all the other
> clients to be operating to this level.  It is already clear that as we talk
> through these extensions to AMQP, other AMQP members are coming up with
> refinements to our initial solutions which mean we will have to rework.
> Having said that, because of requirements put forward by people actually
> using the software, we have built a higher level of interoperability at the
> JMS level into the .net and C++ clients, and C++ broker (i.e. extending the
> FieldTable to cope with the new types).
>
> On 07/03/07, Martin Ritchie <ritchiem@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > This release is very important for the project as everyone has done so
> > much good work since M1 and it is precisely why we need to get a good
> > M2 release done before we have a quite period whilst we sort out our
> > position for 0-9 and 0-10. I am not against the release in any way I
> > think we need to do this release it is just important to scope it
> > correctly and ensure we manage it well as a divided community cannot
> > progress as fast as one that is fully behind the trunk.
>
>
>
> Yes - indeed.  I think that is everybody's feeling.  The idea of doing an M2
> release now is to recognise the great strides we have made since M1, and to
> put out a checkpoint of that which early adopters may use.  In the meantime
> that allows us to move trunk on, and make the necessary changes required to
> move us to AMQP 0-10 (and eventually) AMQP 1-0 support.
>
> It would be good to learn from the current difficulties that are being
> > faced with the maintaining two versions of our code base so that we
> > can all focus on driving Qpid forward as a whole.
> >
> > My understanding of the interop that we were after was more than just
> > being able to send simple messages between clients. If that is minimum
> > level we wish to support with this release then that is a much more
> > manageable task. Which is totally possible in the next few days which
> > won't hold up our 0.9 merge so we can push on to 0.10.
>
>
>  Excellent - this is what I think we are aiming at.  M2 will be a release of
> clients and brokers interoperable at an AMQP level.  In addition, the
> combination of Java client and Java Broker will be sufficiently JMS
> compliant to pass the JMS TCK.
>
> Do we want interop to go beyond sending simple messages between
> > clients to supporting something like the JMS Message types across all
> > clients?
>
>
>
> No - definitely not :-)
>
> The  mapping of JMS to AMQP has been proposed and is being worked on at the
> AMQP level, but it is premature to try to use our current encoding in all
> our clients until it is an AMQP standard.
>
> -- Rob
>

Mime
View raw message