qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: C++ and Java Broker common configuration and tooling
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:26:44 GMT
I don't wish to overcomplicate, but do you want some grouping of features...
(e.g. a parentFeature tag)  if we're looking at the same sort of granularity
as unit tests, that should be quite fine... but many of them may be aspects
of the same "feature"...

-- Rob

2010/1/6 Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com>

> Alan Conway wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2010 06:52 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>>
>>> 2010/1/6 Rafael Schloming<rafaels@redhat.com>
>>>
>>>  Robert Godfrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Overall I think with a bit of work from both the C++ and Java
>>>>> communities
>>>>> we
>>>>> can get the brokers to look and behave much more similarly... however
>>>>> we
>>>>> will also need to change the way we work a bit so that when we decide
>>>>> to
>>>>> add
>>>>> new features we attempt to discuss and agree before implementing. It
>>>>> will
>>>>> do
>>>>> no good to get the brokers temporarily aligned if they immediately
>>>>> begin
>>>>> to
>>>>> drift apart again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I'm just thinking aloud here, but perhaps it would help to gather our
>>>> various disparate documentation snippits into a single canonical feature
>>>> glossary somewhere in SVN. Ideally in some format that could be easily
>>>> fed
>>>> into the documentation, but could also serve as a source for other
>>>> things
>>>> such as generating test matrices, and doing feature based coverage
>>>> analysis.
>>>>
>>>> --Rafael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  That sounds like an excellent idea...
>>>
>>>
>> Can jrobie's proposed docbook for documentation project provide the right
>> format for this? It's XML so should be possible to generate various types of
>> file. Seems like something we want to be able to inject into the user doc as
>> well.
>>
>
> Possibly, I'm not a docbook expert. Either way I suspect a simple XML file
> could be trivially transformed into docbook and whatever else we need, e.g.
> something along the lines of:
>
> <feature name="foo" title="Foo">
>  <description>
>    Blah blah blah.
>  </description>
>
>  <component name="java-broker"/>
>  <component name="cpp-broker"/>
>
>  <test ref="pointer-to-test"/>
>  ...
> </feature>
>
> I'm not sure the extent to which we want to cross reference
> tests/components/etc against this sort of thing. If that's something we feel
> would be valuable then I suspect making up a simple XML format and
> translating to docbook would be the way to go. If on the other hand it's
> essentially just a documentation-only feature glossary then I'm sure docbook
> alone would be sufficient.
>
> As long as the format is fairly regular, I'm not particularly fussed either
> way as it should be straightforward to translate later if necessary.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>

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