This is a good point. The new openwire should be able to always stay backwards compatible so the old model of revving the major number when the wire protocol breaks might not be right anymore.
On 1/23/07, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am under the impression that the open wire protocol should always be able to maintain backward compatibility. Does this mean that we will never change the major version ;-) On 1/23/07, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 9:15 AM, Rob Davies wrote: > > > The latest development is being done on ActiveMQ 4.2 - however > > there are a lot of improvements between 4.1 and 4.2 - namely: > > > > 1. Use of Java 5 > > 2. Message cursors for persistent messages > > 3. Spooling of temporary messages id broker memory is full > > > > and to be delivered in the next couple of weeks: > > > > 1. New very fast journal message store - that we good to be the > > default > > 2. Improvements to message flow control - to take into account the > > spooling and cursors > > > > Given the above - I'd like to propose that the 4.2 release is re- > > versioned to 5.0 and that we deliver a number of milestone releases > > first - before GA > > -1, We have, thus far, used major version numbers to mean > incompatible wire protocol changes, not "impressive new features" and > I would like to maintain that. > > -Brian > > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Architect, LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/) Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
-- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
