qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Changing the release numbering scheme (was Re: [VOTE] Version Numbers)
Date Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:48:27 GMT
For me the minimum for us to call X.0 is that we have stable API's that can
garuntee backwards compatibility.
Perhaps we should aim for protocol version neutral APIs in our next release.
If it takes an extra month or two, so be it.
This might not be difficult as we have spec people on this project who have
a lot of visibility on how the AMQP 1.0 would look like.

A nice to have feature is that the java broker is also 0-10, allthough this
is not a must.



>> I think that protocol-neutral API is going to end up a larger effort
>> than protocol implementation/interop. It ripples very far. It's also
>> what most newcomers will be affected most by as they start to look at
>> how to use Qpid for projects.
> I certainly agree consistency and ease-of-use need to be a focus, but for
> me the minimum bar for X.0 is that we can update the protocol version
> without breaking deployed apps. The current APIs are mostly there, but there
> are a few spots where they are a bit too close to the wire and should have
> something slightly higher level in place. I think once we achieve this level
> then consistency and ease-of-use can be done with backwards compatible
> changes.
> --Rafael
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message