On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 21:15 +0100, Robert Godfrey wrote: > [snip] > > > > >> > >> Can you also be a little clearer on what each of the "External Tools" is? > > These are separate tools to accomplish management tasks. In the case of > > the C++ broker, I am thinking of qpid-tool, qpid-config, qpid-cluster, > > etc. I don't want to use those names, as they are implementation > > dependent. Theoretically, if you support QMF, the python tools should > > work. > > > > I would rather have the names of the tools.. or define it in terms of > the QMF or other features... it seems a bit unclear at the moment in > terms of defining a "feature".
We can do that if the tools are fairly universal. If C++ and Java use the same tools, then I agree, we should name them. > > >> > >> More generally it would be useful I think to put in the version we are > >> planning on having certain features delivered in. For instance for > >> the next release of Qpid from Apache (0.8?) the Java Broker should > >> have QMF, Federation and LVQ in... however AMQP 1-0 is a while off I > >> think... so having them both as "P" is a little misleading. > > How about adding another category - "R" or "+" for "Next release", while > > "P" means sometime beyond that? > > I still prefer just having the (targeted) release number in there... > it takes us some way towards having a roadmap :-) Ok, how about using a subscript after the "P" with a release number (so as not to confuse with notes which are superscripts)? ie P<sub>0.8</sub> to denote a version 0.8 release? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
