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 > >
