2009/11/26 Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Robert Godfrey <rob.j.godf...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2009/11/26 Marnie McCormack <marnie.mccorm...@googlemail.com> > > > >> Hi Rajith & Rafi, > >> > >> I should be able to shed some light on the migration implications of > this > >> change. > >> > >> To check that I've understood what you're proposing - so the existing > >> BindingURL implementation would be used for the 0-8/0-9 codepaths and > >> you're > >> only writing an impl for the 0-10 path ? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Marnie > >> > >> > >> > > I would think this would be a *Bad Thing* > > > > We want people to be able to swap out an 0-9 broker for an 0-10 broker > > without having to reconfigure their clients if possible. > > For sure. This is a key requirement. We want people to upgrade from an > 0-8/0-9 client to a 0-10 client without changes. > And we also want folks to upgrade their existing 0-10 client to a > newer version without having to rewrite their configuration. > So for the 0-10 code path it will support both formats. > > Does this answer your question sufficiently? > > Yep - I have no concerns about that - thanks!
Now... as to having to use a -D on the JVM to choose which URL format to use... :-) -- Rob
