On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 07:52 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote: > I'm about to head out on vacation for 10 days or so, and haven't had a > chance to read Rafi's document yet, but for the avoidance of doubt I'd > just like to make clear that I completely concur with the position > Gordon outlined below. > > In my mind, the purpose of Qpid has always been to develop software under > > the ASF governance and licensing in order to support adoption of AMQP and > > the emergence of an ecosystem built around it that better serves users > > needs. > > Proton is a (big) part of that effort in my mind, and I think our > ability to contribute to the success of AMQP 1.0 would be (stupidly, > unnecessarily) harmed by diluting our efforts into different > "projects".
The fundamental issue is that there are at least two ways to promote adoption of AMQP: either via competition, e.g. building a broker that happens to speak AMQP and competes with existing brokers; or via cooperation, e.g. building a library to make it easy for any existing broker to speak AMQP. While both of these fall under the very broad remit of promoting adoption of AMQP, it simply doesn't work to mix the two strategies within the same project with no delineation. If you do you're essentially asking people to embed their competitor's component into their broker so that their users can more easily migrate over to the competition. As you well know much of what Qpid is today falls into the competition category, and this presents a very real problem for an effort like Proton. --Rafael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
