I don't know if we have the resources available to make every client/broker implementation 0-9 compliant as part of M2. I think we are far enough down the process that we should stick to 0-8 for this release.
However, following the discussions that we've been having on this and the rabbit list (we really should have some sort of amqp-users list to cross-post this to)... I think we *really* need to implement a version of our clients/brokers that speak 0-8/0-9(non-WIP)/Qpid-enhanced-0-[89]. Given the small magnitude of the changes involved - I don't think this is a huge piece of work (from the Java side)... I can't really speak for the other languages. Cheers, Rob On 29/08/2007, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 29/08/2007, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 29/08/2007, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It ignores the bigger picture and this is where I think we need to > > > take a moment. Interoperability was one of the highest goals for M2, > > > but is interoperability with ourselves really enough? Given that our > > > 0_8 spec is a hybrid with some 0_9 and 0_10 features can we really > > > claim that this is an AMQP product? > > > > One question I have is this: how many of the changes we made in 0-8 > > went into 0-9? Why are we not 0-9 (non-WIP) for M2? > > > > RG > > Given that M2 has taken so long I can understand the desire to release > it, but now that you state the obvious.. that we are not using 0-9 I > have to wonder if we should re-scope M2. > > This would IMO work out nicely: > > M1 = AMQP 0_8 > M2 = AMQP 0_9 > M3 = AMQP 0_10 > > The more we talk about this the less convinced I am that we should > release M2 in the current state. > -- > Martin Ritchie >
