> -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:38 PM > To: dev@qpid.apache.org > Cc: d...@activemq.apache.org > Subject: Re: AMQP client library collaboration > > > On 06/10/2010 06:57 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Gordon Sim<g...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 06/10/2010 06:21 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > >>> > >>> This effort needs to be vendor neutral to encourage participation > >>> from a wider audience, as such it's not appropriate to > host in under > >>> Qpid or ActiveMQ. > >> > >> What do you mean by 'vendor neutral'? How are either Qpid > or ActiveMQ > >> 'vendors'? They are surely open source projects, > collaborations that > >> both aim to be as inclusive as possible. > > > > Good point, Gordon ;-). Well, I guess my thought is that > because each > > project will provide a broker implementation of the AMQP spec that > > neither is appropriate for a neutral protocol level client > that is not > > specific to either broker. The Apache Commons HTTP Client > could have > > been hosted as a subproject to the HTTPD server project, but that > > wasn't appropriate so it was made a separate project. The > same logic > > applies in this case. > > I would respectfully disagree. The httpd project started > specifically as > a web server (not a browser, not a generic client). The Qpid > project was > specifically started as a place for collaborating on multi > language AMQP > implementations (including but not restricted to broker code). > > Qpid should be open and inclusive, if it is not perceived as such we > want to change that. What is it that makes 'neutrality' an issue, > especially between two Apache projects?
Ideally it would be great to get participation from other AMQP-implementing groups as well. -Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
