On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think we should exclude Desired Future Endstate from consideration >> for this work. The 0-10 stuff is obviously relevant, since it will be >> taking place concurrently. > > Ok. I only really mentioned it due to past discussions where interest was > expressed for doing 0-10 in concert with/on top of 1.0 work, so I figured > any discussions there might get slightly intertwined. Yeah. I think we'll just need to see how that plays out as this goes on. >> We're going to need to keep the existing API for a bit, if we're going >> to be breaking stuff I strongly feel we need to do it for everything >> at once (server config, client APIs etc). > > +1 > > Any discussions of major change were only in reference to any 1.0 > consideration, I don't think there is any other point on the horizon that > justifies/requires break-inducing changes being considered. I'm hoping that if we can also answer the question about how modules can contribute management functionality that will mostly take care of this problem. > Indeed, although extending stuff in general doesn't need to be as messy as > the above bit was. That was mainly the result of changing the required input > or units of existing functionality because it was totally braindead :) Seriously. The MaxQueueDepth thing was just hateful. I'm glad that's behind us. :) Is it worth talking about changes to the UI itself now and work out any necessary new bits as we go, or, indeed, have you already identified most of them? - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - Give me convenience or give me death http://qpid.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
