[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1880?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12715770#action_12715770
]
Ian Main commented on QPID-1880:
--------------------------------
What do you mean by 'struct' here? I guess I should look at the code. If an
unmanaged object were called a 'struct' that would be fine. They should be
clearly identified as such throughout the API however. Eg we should have a
QmfStruct type and return that type etc. From what I've seen they are
identified as objects.
While we're at it, I also think QMF objects, which are now 'Objects' in eg ruby
and python, should be QmfObjects to differentiate them from native types.
> The new unmanaged objects are confusing
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: QPID-1880
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1880
> Project: Qpid
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Qpid Managment Framework
> Reporter: Ian Main
>
> IMO the newly added managed objects are confusing in that they return and
> look just like the managed objects, but you are unable to call methods on
> them, nor use eg the refresh() method to get a newly updated instance.
> QMF up until this point has made all objects managed and backed by an
> implementation. The addition of a data structure type could be very useful
> but I don't think it should share the same name as the managed objects around
> which QMF revolves.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
