I don't have a strong view on the 'correct' approach since I'm not familiar
with the .Net components.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with Rafi's comments about dropping this in
without a discussion beforehand (and apologies if I missed one?). If I was
an existing .Net contributer I'd be pretty hacked off I think !

What should we do now while the discussion on this takes place ?

Marnie




On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Rafael Schloming <rafa...@redhat.com>wrote:

> Gordon Sim wrote:
>
>> On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: tross
>>> Date: Mon May 10 20:33:19 2010
>>> New Revision: 942892
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=942892&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> QPID-2589 - Applied patch from Chuck Rolke.
>>>
>>
>> This commit adds a new component and yet another approach for .net,
>> specifically a .net wrapper around the c++ messaging API.
>>
>> We also have a wcf client (this also uses some c++ code, but uses the 0-10
>> specific API plus some direct use of the internals of the client), and two
>> different pure c# clients for 0-8 and 0-10 respectively.
>>
>> Four different options each with its own codebase isn't sensible. We can't
>> maintain them all and it is confusing for users.
>>
>> While aspects of this latest approach certainly appeal to me personally
>> (the messaging API is better for a number of reasons than the older API and
>> wrapping that also keeps the clients more aligned conceptually), I think it
>> deserves a bit more debate. Specifically we have to explicitly decide as a
>> community whether this new approach is a path we should pursue. I'm keen to
>> hear the thoughts of Cliff, Aidan and other .net aficionados.
>>
>
> While I prefer depending on the new C++ messaging API to depending on the
> old one, I don't think either one is really the correct choice. I think the
> WCF client should actually depend on a C# interface to the message API, thus
> giving something that is more reasonable to use directly from C#, while
> being able to be back-ended by either the C++ implementation of the
> messaging API or by a pure C# implementation if one is so inclined to write
> one.
>
> On purely procedural note, it is IMHO *very* bad form to drop such a patch
> into the repo without some list discussion prior. I'm particularly
> uncomfortable that this was committed by someone who (as far as I'm aware)
> is not a regular WCF committer, nor intends to become one.
>
> This has been the general approach in this area since the first dotnet
> effort ages ago. It's no wonder there are 4 completely different approaches
> half of which are rotting. Cleaning out the rot is only half the problem
> here, we *really* have to stop doing stuff like this or we'll keep on making
> more rot.
>
> IMHO this patch should be backed out until some discussion has happened and
> its clear that those responsible for maintaining WCF going forward are
> comfortable with the approach.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to