No problem Hinton. ;-) -William
----- Original Message ----- > Thanks Henry, > I asked my question wrong. > I was really wondering if anyone was working on a set of C++ tests, > similar to the Python tests. > Thanks, > Mary > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:51 PM > To: proton@qpid.apache.org > Cc: dpie...@redhat.com > Subject: Re: Language example apps... > > Hi Mary, > > It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work > because the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton > C API under the covers. > > That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure this > is true. > > Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples > (?). i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton > enabled C++ API? Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton > addressing with the more complex previous addressing that allowed us > to build exchanges and queues? > > William > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be > > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 > > > if > > > we do something with C++). > > > > Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone > > currently working on creating C++ examples? > > > > Thanks, > > Mary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpie...@redhat.com] > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM > > To: proton@qpid.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Language example apps... > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce > > <dpie...@redhat.com>wrote: > > > > > > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for > > > > Proton across language bindings. What I found are the > > > > following: > > > > > > > > C Python Ruby Perl > > > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ] > > > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X] > > > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ] > > > > > > > > > > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also. > > > > Yeah, sorry to forget that. > > > > > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack > > > of > > > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific > > > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show > > > > very > > > > simple point-to-point messaging. > > > > > > > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing > > > > that > > > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions. > > > > > > > > Ideas? > > > > > > > > > > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head... > > > > > > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really > > > be > > > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth > > > having > > > non messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as > > > those kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining > > > duplicate examples involves some significant maintenance effort. > > > I > > > would rather see a very well maintained/structured C example for > > > the > > > non messenger stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't > > > bother exposing the non messenger APIs through the bindings at > > > all, > > > with the exception of python for testing purposes of course. To > > > be > > > clear I'm not opposed to exposing them, I just don't think there > > > is > > > any demand at this point and I think it just creates unnecessary > > > work until there is. > > > > > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be > > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 > > > if > > > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a > > > basic, well thought out, but simple messenger based example > > > geared > > > towards getting people started, and strive to keep that > > > consistent > > > and up to date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios > > > to > > > one language only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems > > > most > > > appropriate for that particular deep scenario. > > > > If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the > > bindings, > > then one language doing a deep example and others doing more > > general > > examples should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy > > to > > understand for someone not familiar with it to follow. > > > > -- > > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. > > Delivering value year after year. > > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. > > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ > > > > > > > > > > >
