On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:33 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote: > On 25 June 2012 19:26, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 06/25/2012 05:37 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote: > >> > >> when we are talking about Qpid Proton, it may be > >> integrated in the (imaginary) XXXMQ broker, and XXXMQ's relationship > >> to Qpid Proton and the Qpid Proton discussion lists should > >> (theoretically) be the same as that between Qpid Java/C++ Broker and > >> Qpid Proton. If we mix these lists up it makes is much harder for the > >> (imaginary) XXXMQ community to view the Qpid Proton lists as equally > >> applicable to them > > > > > > I think another way of putting this is that a distinct list helps reinforce > > the notion that the proton is an independent artefact in its own right, with > > public APIs and appropriate guarantees around stability and focus rather > > than just an internal layer subservient to some of the other Qpid > > components. > > yes that is a much more succinct way of putting it - thank you :-) > > > > > That seems reasonable. > > > > However the new site describes proton as "suitable for simple clients or > > high powered servers" and "ideal for building out your own messaging > > applications". I think it is important to address the overlap with the > > existing user list in some way and to anticipate the questions this may well > > raise for users (and indeed developers!) of our existing messaging APIs as > > well as those who become interested in the community in the future. > > > > Yes - though I see part of the website statement as merely "marketing" > :-) It also depends on what hat you are wearing when you read those > words. If you read them as if you were a developer looking to *build* > a broker, I think it makes sense. if you read them as an end user, > they are potentially misleading. As the content of all of the Qpid > website gets built out, we should ensure any such confusion is > eliminated.
I think part of the issue here is confusion resulting from the model change between AMQP 1.0 and prior versions. The prior versions of the specification where really specifying how to build a broker, and along with that they supplied a vaguely RPC-style interface for clients. In this context, a messaging application is referring to a higher level application built on top of such a broker. In contrast, AMQP 1.0 defines a true messaging protocol, and in this context the term messaging application really describes a much broader class of thing, i.e. anything that speaks AMQP 1.0 which includes a wide variety of different styles of brokers, client libraries, and end user apps. --Rafael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
