qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Updating the 0-10 Java transport layer
Date Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:04:41 GMT
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff<cctrieloff@redhat.com>  wrote:
>> I still think it needs debate,
>> For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
>> model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
>> that relate to this?
>> This discussing needs to be had a bit more broadly so that all involved in
>> the client can contribute / agree.
>> I would like to see agreement between Rob, Rafi, Rajith,&  Andrew for
>> example
>> on this topic.
>> (unless it has happened and I missed it, if I see acks then I'll be happy)
>> Carl.
> I want to see the proposal from Andrew before commenting in detail,
> but in general this is going on at a lower layer than the API stuff...
> here we're considering the interface down to the IO layer.  At the
> moment this is a bit (no, a *lot*) of a mess, and is completely
> different on the 0-10 codepath and the 0-8/0-9/0-9-1 codepath.
> There's no real reason for the interface down to the transport from
> the different protocol stacks to be different.  What I understand
> Andrew to be doing is tidying up where Aidan left off in removing
> dependencies on particular implementations of an IO layer (e.g. MINA)
> from the code, and providing a single interface that can be used by
> the current (and future) protocol versions.  As part of this I believe
> he'll be encapsulating the current MINA code behind the interface so
> that it is exposed in a similar way to the IoTransport that was
> written as part of the 0-10 work.
> The initial driver for this work is to allow for the running of "InVM"
> tests on the 0-10 codepath in the same way as they are run for 0-8,
> 0-9 and 0-9-1 currently.  getting these tests running again needs to
> be a priority for us in terms of proving the Java Broker for 0-10.
> The work is really orthogonal to work on adding the new API to the
> Java client and then writing a JMS client library on top of that API.
> While I agree that such an approach could greatly simplify the client
> - it would involve a major re-write which we would definitely want to
> discuss and plan in advance.
> I don't think there is any real risk involved in the work Andrew is
> discussing, and it will bring significant benefits in terms of
> allowing us to use alternative IO layers, and unifying the interface
> used underneath 0-10 and the other versions of the protocol.

That helps set the context for me  -- let's get input from Rafi and 
Rajith, and
if we are in agreement then that is great.


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

View raw message