Hi all, excuse me for the intromission but after had a look at all the emails of this thread I didn't understand what is the final decision : where QMan source will be located?
Regards, Andrea 2008/10/1 Marnie McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi All, > > I have some strong views here, and reading them please bear in mind I'm at > the sharp end of approx 30 user projects built on Qpid ....... (very sharp > right now :-) > > - more JARs and interdependencies is not a good thing for our users > - we do not want to mess with the build system just now, we haven't even > really finished getting the 'new' ant one up to full throttle and I don't > think this is the most important area for effort ? > - making more things for clients to depend on is bad news > - I definitely think the mgt stuff should live outside our existing client > structure > > I can see both sides of the reorg discussion, but I'm heavily influenced by > limiting this type of change unless there's a clear return on the > investment > - we've been on the go for 2 years and are already on our 3rd set of build > scripts etc on the Java side. > > So, there may be a logical reason for making changes - but unless there's a > really compelling reason to change *again*, then pleeeaaase let's not. I > haven't yet updated our dev build page to say 'M1 instructions', 'M2+ > Instructions', 'M3 Instructions'. Argh. So, come forth with your 'this is > the current quantifiable pain' arguments for the reorder or let's make it a > golden goal for sometime post-M4 ! > > We have LOTS and LOTS of JIRAs, let's do them first !!! > > Phew. > > I'm going to step away from the keyboard now. Don't all shout back at once. > > Bfn, > Regards, > Marnie > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Arnaud Simon wrote: > > > >> ----- "Rafael Schloming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I kind of agree but following this reasoning this would mean that we > >>>> > >>> need a standalone jar for the jms client. > >>> I'm not sure I follow. We *do* have a standalone jar for the jms > >>> client. Or we did before the management stuff was put under client. > >>> > >>> --Rafael > >>> > >> > >> What I mean that not all applications may use JMS as this a layer on top > >> of AMQP. So if we follow your reasoning we should have a jar for the > AMQP > >> client and a jar for the JMS implementation. > >> > > > > I agree, with the one caveat that I don't think it's a good idea to > > consider protocol level APIs public until AMQP 1.0 is released. > > > > --Rafael > > > > >
