On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 15:59 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > 3. This is the second hardest question for me! > > I've personally invested a lot of time and effort in the qpid messaging > API. It was specifically geared to transitioning to 1.0. I personally > feel there is much to recommend it still. My desire would be to find a > way for this to 'blend in' with the APIs developing under proton in some > way. > > However I agree with Rafi's analysis of the different facets of use; I > find his account of the evolution of proton in this respect compelling. > I think it would be foolish to stick rigidly to the past despite a > deeper, richer understanding of the API space emerging. > > I believe that what users really want is not 4 entirely separate APIs, > but something that transitions from one use case to another more > smoothly. Ideally I don't want to have to learn all 4 APIs to see which > one best fits my requirements; ideally I don't want a new requirement in > my system to force me onto an entirely different API.
I agree. The matrix is really describing use cases and ideally a single API or a small suite of integrated APIs could address all 4 quadrants. There is definitely a certain level of integration with what's there now, e.g. there is a common message abstraction that can be used across both messenger and the engine. I think this will definitely evolve though. > I think there are still some open questions here. I think the the proton > APIs are very new and may still evolve a little (the engine less so, the > driver and messenger APIs more so). We need more user involvement and > open discussion of options. I hope to have more time in the not too > distant future to collaborate on some of this. That would be excellent. --Rafael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
