Hi Shameera, The biggest disadvantage in having a separate JS API is, we have to maintain 2 API's (The Java API and the JS API you are going to introduce). So if we change one API for functionality, we have to make sure other API is also have that change. In the long run this will be inefficient and we cannot make sure both APIs are in sync functionality wise.
We would like to maintain one API. (I hope others would also agree with me) Thanks Amila On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Shameera Rathnayaka <shameerai...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Danushka, > > Thanks for your suggestions and thoughts. we can list down all pros and > cons of each approach and select the best approach base on the results. As > Danushka has mentioned, we need to consider the effort and time too when we > do this selection. > > @Lahiru, It would be very good, if we can know your point of on this too. > > @All, you are welcome to add your thoughts on these approaches. > > > Thanks, > Shameera. > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura < > danushka.menikkumb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sorry for the late reply as I have been busy with a release for the last > > few days. > > > > This was the plan (This is suggested as the first approach in my > proposal), > > > but to implement this we need to use java inside the JS. From developer > > > perspective it is not a good idea as there are difficulties to debug > and > > > lack of tooling support. > > > > > > I would still opt for Airavata API inside JS for the following reasons. > > > > 1. The current API has been there for a while, hence well tested and > > stable. Therefore the chances are very slim that you will end up > debugging > > through it for troubleshooting. If we have proper exception handling in > the > > JS, we will easily see what went wrong in the API call. > > > > 2. Writing an API from the scratch will require more time and effort to > > make it stable. Moreover, debugging a JS API written from the scratch > would > > be trickier than using a stable API inside it and checking for issues > that > > may occur sporadically. > > > > 3. I am not a "JS guy" but NetBeans would be a better options in terms of > > tooling IMO. > > > > > > > Great, This means there won't be any issue choosing above approach, > isn't > > > it? Could you please explain how we intend to support that with JS if > we > > > don't need a RabbitMQ JS API?. > > > > > > > Frankly, I do not still see a need for JS API. > > > > Thanks, > > Danushka > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Shameera Rathnayaka. > > email: shameera AT apache.org , shameerainfo AT gmail.com > Blog : http://shameerarathnayaka.blogspot.com/ >
