qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Ingham <David.Ing...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: want to contribute ;)
Date Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:04:22 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to explain Aidan - I think we're in sync.


-----Original Message-----
From: aidan.skinner@gmail.com [mailto:aidan.skinner@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Aidan Skinner
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:39 PM
To: David Ingham
Cc: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: want to contribute ;)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, David Ingham
<David.Ingham@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I'm struggling to think of a business case for why I'd want to mix and match C++ and
Java brokers in a cluster. I'm not pushing back; I'm just interested as to why you think this

It's not so much important, more interesting. I think one case when I
would have a heterogeneous cluster would be where I've had a system
grow organically and there's some reason why the extant brokers can't
just be swapped out.

The only time I think I would purposefully design a system with a mix
(which is clearly somewhat obtuse) is where I'm hedging against some
catastrophic bug that affects, say, the java broker but not the c++
broker and the system absolutely, positively cannot cope.

> FWIW, I think that there's great value in having a common clustering design across the
different language brokers, mainly to reduce overall complexity of the project as a whole,
but I hadn't considered it being a requirement to mix different language versions in the same

It's definitely not something I'm saying is a must-have, I just think
it's sufficiently nice to have that it's worth trying not to preclude

- Aidan
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing

Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

View raw message