I must apologize for my part in sticking this code into the code base before a proper discussion. I fell into the logic trap that the idea behind the work "made sense" so I went ahead. I neglected the larger group by thinking that it "made sense to me" without having everyone else's thoughts. Sorry about that.
Please, though, don't be "hacked off". If I'd have gone in to the WCF project and started wailing away on the code without a buy-in then someone could legitimately be upset. The C++ messaging interface is new and WCF will probably never give you direct access to it. I don't see there being any conflict between the in-the-small .net binding and the in-the-large WCF messaging scheme. They coexist naturally. You can rip the code out if you want and wait until a more formal plan comes along. In the meantime, by having the code checked in I'm getting valuable criticism from Cliff on code strategy and style. And the binding works. There are a lot of loose ends but I'm committed to seeing them through. Regards, Chuck ----- "Marnie McCormack" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "Marnie McCormack" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:38:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [.net]: some debate please > > 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 > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Gordon Sim wrote: > > > >> On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, [email protected] 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:[email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
