> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > 2008/10/8 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > It implies that the API is immature, which it is. The only > stable API that > > I'm aware of Qpid having is the JMS one. Everything else > has a tendancy to > > change / be completely rewritten between versions. > > This highlights the insanity (in my view) of basing an API on the > protocol. I have already made my position on this clear in the past so > I won't labour the point!
I'm glad to hear this from someone who's been around this project for a while. > In general, I think people expect API compatibility within major > versions. We would need an API migration plan for non-major releases > too - perhaps some backwards compatibility but with deprecation. > > I think that many people view the version number as an indication of > maturity. API compatibility is just *expected* from any professional > organisation that has any understanding of enterprise requirements. Exactly. Is there any plan or energy pent up for working on the API? I'm just getting going here, I know, but the C++ API seems overly complicated for its purposes. I'd be willing to expend a little energy on this area if there's support. -Steve
