qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Kearney <bkear...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Updating the 0-10 Java transport layer
Date Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:39:36 GMT
On 08/20/2010 11:04 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> 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.
> Carl.
If I read this as a non JMA api layer... that would be nice.

-- bk

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

View raw message