qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: 10000 msgs limit per session
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:13:59 GMT
Robert Godfrey wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Robert Greig <robert.j.greig@gmail.com>
>> 2009/12/1 Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com>:
>>> I think the point for this thread is that if it is windows-only then it
>>> isn't really a substitute for the existing dotnet clients which work (in
>> as
>>> much as they have ever worked) on mono.
>> Well that assumes that running on mono is a goal? Do we have any users
>> of the .NET client on Mono?
>> IKVM is a way of running Java. I have no idea whether IKVM implements
>> enough of the JDK libraries to enable the Qpid Java client to run
>> under it but let's assume for the moment that it does. Further, let us
>> assume that some important change in 0.6 or another upcoming release
>> breaks that. Do we say that we should not proceed with that change
>> because IKVM isn't supported?
> Not quite the same thing is it?  A better analogy might be to imagine that
> the JMS client required the use of the compiled C++ libraries and say we
> only supported Java on Windows and Linux... I think that to have implemented
> the JMS client in that way would have been a poor choice.

If there are a  lot of devs/ users that want it that and put the effort 
in to build such a thing and maintain it, for
example create a c++ shim for JMS for RDMA/IB. And a strong community 
forms then why not?

I.e. Those that do have more say in the definition of the model, and the 
debate conclusion should come
from those investigating into the module being invested in.  I.e. if a 
set of people show up and make IKVM
work and support it, why not?

Does this invalidate another client that is also being actively 
maintained, that is clearly no.


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