> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram > Chirino > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite > > > Scott, > > Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing from > the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months > for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not.
There has been a skeleton since early Jun. > So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed > improvements to the current JBossMQ implementation. > Where have you been the past year when Adrian and Scott have been fixing this buggy MQ implementation? You failed to keep up the old stuff so please don't make it sound like you're coming to the rescue. I'm not so sure I want a total refactoring of the old JMS in the remoting subsystem and the interceptor chains and such. The current JMS rewrite by Nathan, Adrian, and Bela is going quite well and we will be replacing the old system in the fall. What I don't want is a CVS HEAD of the old JMS that doesn't look like the 3.2 series since it will be much harder to migrate 3.2 fixes to a CVS HEAD that has been totally refactored. The old JMS needs to live a bit beyond 4.0's release and 4.0 will not be released until the late late fall, between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of users will still depend on the old JMS for at least another year and we need some to have fluidity between 3.2 and 4.0. We're already experiencing the pain of an unnecessary rewrite of the Entity Container that is making it difficult to merge fixes in 3.2 to 4.0. I don't want the same thing to happen with a codebase that is going to be retired eventually anyways and that needs to live in depracated mode for awhile. > Nathan, > > Your doing great work in the peer based JMS arena. But have you > formulated a game plan for the rewrite of general purpose > implementation? > > Right now I'm going down the route of simplifying our current c/s > implementation down enough so that we can start taking it apart more > easily if required to add the needed features. > If you still are up to merging fixes in 3.2 to HEAD that is fine. I'm not sure we want a full refactoring. Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
