Re: [VOTE] RC8
[x] Ship it! Rajith On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > I'm optimistically starting an official release vote for RC8 here. I'm > hoping if there is enough support and no procedural objections we can fudge > the 72 hour formal vote process down to 24 hours. I personally think this > is reasonable because (a) it's a 0.1 release and (b) we've been at the RC > thing for well over 72 hours now and the changes at this point are pretty > small and isolated. The motivation for this fudging is to get something > official posted for conference attendees to download. Please place your > votes ASAP. Thanks! > > [ ] Ship it! (http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-proton-0.1rc8/ as 0.1) > [ ] Don't ship it! > > --Rafael
[VOTE] RC8
I'm optimistically starting an official release vote for RC8 here. I'm hoping if there is enough support and no procedural objections we can fudge the 72 hour formal vote process down to 24 hours. I personally think this is reasonable because (a) it's a 0.1 release and (b) we've been at the RC thing for well over 72 hours now and the changes at this point are pretty small and isolated. The motivation for this fudging is to get something official posted for conference attendees to download. Please place your votes ASAP. Thanks! [ ] Ship it! (http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-proton-0.1rc8/ as 0.1) [ ] Don't ship it! --Rafael
RC8
I've posted an RC8 here: http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-proton-0.1rc8/ This is almost identical to RC7 with the following changes, mostly minor fixes shown up by interop testing: 1. added a mapping for the bool type to the python bindings (this was missing from RC7) 2. fixed the comment syntax for cproton.ini (the automatic license insertion used a comment syntax that doesn't work with all PHP versions) 3. added a workaround for non string/integer keys in php arrays 4. fixed multi-frame transfers (there were 3 small bugs here exposed by interop testing with other implementations) 5. fixed a codec bug involving nested data structures 6. fixed the mapping for char in the php binding 7. fixed UUID pretty printing for the PHP binding 8. added missing typedefs for swig interface (int8_t, [u]int16_t) I would have let these role over to 0.2 given that it is going to start in a few days, except that Proton is going to be showcased at conferences starting this week and next and it would be very good to have something stable to point to very soon (i.e. tomorrow). Given this I think it's well worth getting these last few fixes into 0.1 and putting that up even though we're going to follow up very shortly with a 0.2 that has ack support. FWIW, I don't expect the ack support to be destabilizing, but better safe than sorry. Please have a look and give this your +1 if it checks out. --Rafael
[jira] [Created] (PROTON-109) Proton should handle inbound max-frame size violations.
Ken Giusti created PROTON-109: - Summary: Proton should handle inbound max-frame size violations. Key: PROTON-109 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-109 Project: Qpid Proton Issue Type: Bug Components: proton-c Reporter: Ken Giusti According to the spec, if the local proton-c client has configured a maximum frame size, and the remote attempts to send a frame that violates that size: A peer that receives an oversized frame MUST close the Connection with the framing-error error-code. Need to verify this behavior is handled. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
Re: acks for messenger
For the record, I also like option (2), for the reasons that Justin articulated. -Ted On 10/26/2012 11:24 AM, Justin Ross wrote: I like option 2) for two reasons. One, it produces very straightforward semantics for the various levels of delivery guarantee. Two, it's easy to ignore if you'd like: if you just want fire-and-forget messaging, you don't have to engage delivery as an api concept; if you later change your mind, it's not hard to level up. Justin On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote: I'm taking a look at expanding the messenger API to support reliability and so far there seem to be two directions to explore which I'll attempt to describe below: Option 1) Messenger.ack(Message) or possibly Message.ack() I'll describe this as the simple/expected/conservative option, and those really are its strong points. Some less desirable points are that it takes the Message concept in a bit of a different direction from where it is now. Message is no longer simply a holder of content, but it is also now (at least internally) tracking some kind of delivery state. This is undesirable from a design perspective since you're really merging two separate concepts here, delivery state and message content, e.g. you now end up holding onto the message content to track the delivery state when arguablly the common case is that an app will be done processing the content quickly but may care about the delivery state for longer. Another implication of this merging is that it makes messages harder to reuse, e.g. imagine if you want to receive a message, mutate it a bit, and then resend it or send a number of similar messages. It's also potentially more work from an implementation perspective as the underlying model treats Message as pure content and has delivery factored out as a separate concept, so this would be the start of a bit of an impedence missmatch between layers. It's certainly doable, but might result in more overall code since we'd be expressing similar concepts in two different ways. Option 2) Introduce/surface the notion of a delivery/tracking number through the Messenger API, e.g.: Messenger.put(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever Messenger.get(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever (I'll abbreviate Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever as DTW for now.) There are a couple of choices with this option, DTW could be a value object (i.e. similar to a handle), with actions on the messenger itself, e.g. Messenger.ack(DTW), Messenger.status(DTW). This kind of takes the tracking number analogy and runs with it, you ask your messenger about the status of a given delivery via its tracking number. Alternatively, DTW itself could be a more action oriented interface with its own methods for acking/status/etc. This isn't necessarily an either/or as there are reasons the C API might want to use a handle approach even if we wish to conceptualize/surface DTW as more of an independent thing in the object oriented interfaces. On the negative side this is less traditional/expected relative to Option (1), and it does in total add more surface area to the API. On the positive side however it does provide a lot more capability since the same concept extends quite easily to track the state of outgoing deliveries. From a design perspective this is nicer for a couple of reasons, unlike Option (1) by keeping Message as a pure holder of content you have more flexibility with how you use the API, e.g. you can discard/reuse the Message but still track the status of your deliveries. Also, it seems likely that once the Option 1) path includes the ability to track the status of outgoing deliveries, the total surface area balance might fall more in favor of Option (2). A possible addendum to Option (2) suggested by Rob in order to deal with the surface area concerns is adding some kind of Messenger.ack() that would acknowledge all unacked deliveries pulled from the incoming queue. This would enable you to do basic acking without ever needing to bother with DTWs if you don't care about them. This could in fact be a nice place to start as it doesn't necessarily commit us to either path initially. FWIW, my bias right now is towards exploring Option (2). I think the fact that it is less expected is sufficiently mitigated by the fact that with the addendum there is a very gentle learning curve, and even if you explain all the concepts up front, the whole tracking number analogy makes it fairly intuitive. I can even imagine playing up the difference as a selling point from a technical marketing perspective. --Rafael
Re: acks for messenger
Am 29.10.2012 um 18:03 schrieb Rafael Schloming: think controlling whether or not the application is required to ack atthe subscription level might be a bit weird since you might or might notneed to ack a message depending on where it has come from and that could beerror prone/confusing.SwiftMQ is doing it this way:More here:http://www.swiftmq.com/products/router/swiftlets/sys_amqp/client/index.html-- Andreas MuellerIIT Software GmbH, Bremen/Germanyhttp://www.swiftmq.com IIT Software GmbH Fahrenheitstr. 1, D28359 Bremen, Germany Tel: +49 421 2208-166, Fax: +49 421 2208-167 Amtsgericht Bremen, HRB 18624, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Andreas Mueller Steuernummer: 71/572/04100, VAT: DE199945912
Re: acks for messenger
So for configuring this capability I was thinking of something along the lines of two messenger level settings for reliability, e.g. something for incoming messages controlling at-most-once vs at-least-once vs exactly-once, and likewise for outgoing messages. I think controlling whether or not the application is required to ack at the subscription level might be a bit weird since you might or might not need to ack a message depending on where it has come from and that could be error prone/confusing. I think we could have a separate control at the subscription level that would influence what acking happens on the wire, but I think we should think of the responsibilities of the programmer and his interaction the outgoing/incoming queues as distinct from what acking may or may not happen on the wire. --Rafael On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:58 AM, David Ingham wrote: > I like option 2 too for the concept separation reasons that have already > been stated. > > The next question is how would an app select which receive mode it's > interested in (auto ack vs. explicit ack). Would this be an option on > Messenger.subscribe()? > > Dave. > > -Original Message- > From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 12:27 PM > To: proton@qpid.apache.org > Subject: Re: acks for messenger > > +1 I like the separation. And the analogy to tracking is not only > palatable but also kinda proves out the idea. > > William > > - Original Message - > > I like option 2) for two reasons. One, it produces very > > straightforward semantics for the various levels of delivery > > guarantee. Two, it's easy to ignore if you'd like: if you just want > > fire-and-forget messaging, you don't have to engage delivery as an api > > concept; if you later change your mind, it's not hard to level up. > > > > Justin > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > > > > I'm taking a look at expanding the messenger API to support > > > reliability and so far there seem to be two directions to explore > > > which I'll attempt to describe below: > > > > > > Option 1) > > > > > > Messenger.ack(Message) or possibly Message.ack() > > > > > > I'll describe this as the simple/expected/conservative option, and > > > those really are its strong points. Some less desirable points are > > > that it takes the Message concept in a bit of a different direction > > > from where it is now. Message is no longer simply a holder of > > > content, but it is also now (at least internally) tracking some > > > kind of delivery state. This is undesirable from a design > > > perspective since you're really merging two separate concepts here, > > > delivery state and message content, e.g. you now end up holding > > > onto the message content to track the delivery state when arguablly > > > the common case is that an app will be done processing the content > > > quickly but may care about the delivery state for longer. Another > > > implication of this merging is that it makes messages harder to > > > reuse, e.g. imagine if you want to receive a message, mutate it a > > > bit, and then resend it or send a number of similar messages. > > > > > > It's also potentially more work from an implementation perspective > > > as the underlying model treats Message as pure content and has > > > delivery factored out as a separate concept, so this would be the > > > start of a bit of an impedence missmatch between layers. It's > > > certainly doable, but might result in more overall code since we'd > > > be expressing similar concepts in two different ways. > > > > > > Option 2) > > > > > > Introduce/surface the notion of a delivery/tracking number through > > > the Messenger API, e.g.: > > > > > > Messenger.put(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever > > > Messenger.get(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever > > > > > > (I'll abbreviate Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever as DTW for > > > now.) > > > > > > There are a couple of choices with this option, DTW could be a > > > value object (i.e. similar to a handle), with actions on the > > > messenger itself, e.g. Messenger.ack(DTW), Messenger.status(DTW). > > > This kind of takes the tracking number analogy and runs with it, > > > you ask your messenger about the status of a given delivery via its > > > tracking number. Alternatively, DTW itself could be a more action > > > oriented interface with its own methods for acking/status/etc. This > > > isn't necessarily an either/or as there are reasons the C API might > > > want to use a handle approach even if we wish to > > > conceptualize/surface DTW as more of an independent thing in the > > > object oriented interfaces. > > > > > > On the negative side this is less traditional/expected relative to > > > Option (1), and it does in total add more surface area to the API. > > > On the positive side however it does provide a lot more capability > > > since the same concept extends quite easily to
Re: acks for messenger
+1 to Option 2, with Rob's Messenger.ack() capability. -K - Original Message - > I'm taking a look at expanding the messenger API to support > reliability and so far there seem to be two directions to explore > which I'll attempt to describe below: > > Option 1) > > Messenger.ack(Message) or possibly Message.ack() > > I'll describe this as the simple/expected/conservative option, and > those really are its strong points. Some less desirable points are > that it takes the Message concept in a bit of a different direction > from where it is now. Message is no longer simply a holder of > content, but it is also now (at least internally) tracking some > kind > of delivery state. This is undesirable from a design perspective > since you're really merging two separate concepts here, delivery > state and message content, e.g. you now end up holding onto the > message content to track the delivery state when arguablly the > common case is that an app will be done processing the content > quickly but may care about the delivery state for longer. Another > implication of this merging is that it makes messages harder to > reuse, e.g. imagine if you want to receive a message, mutate it a > bit, and then resend it or send a number of similar messages. > > It's also potentially more work from an implementation perspective > as the underlying model treats Message as pure content and has > delivery factored out as a separate concept, so this would be the > start of a bit of an impedence missmatch between layers. It's > certainly doable, but might result in more overall code since we'd > be expressing similar concepts in two different ways. > > Option 2) > > Introduce/surface the notion of a delivery/tracking number through > the Messenger API, e.g.: > > Messenger.put(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever > Messenger.get(Message) -> Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever > > (I'll abbreviate Delivery/Tracking-Number/Whatever as DTW for now.) > > There are a couple of choices with this option, DTW could be a > value > object (i.e. similar to a handle), with actions on the messenger > itself, e.g. Messenger.ack(DTW), Messenger.status(DTW). This kind > of > takes the tracking number analogy and runs with it, you ask your > messenger about the status of a given delivery via its tracking > number. Alternatively, DTW itself could be a more action oriented > interface with its own methods for acking/status/etc. This isn't > necessarily an either/or as there are reasons the C API might want > to use a handle approach even if we wish to conceptualize/surface > DTW as more of an independent thing in the object oriented > interfaces. > > On the negative side this is less traditional/expected relative to > Option (1), and it does in total add more surface area to the API. > On the positive side however it does provide a lot more capability > since the same concept extends quite easily to track the state of > outgoing deliveries. > > From a design perspective this is nicer for a couple of reasons, > unlike Option (1) by keeping Message as a pure holder of content > you > have more flexibility with how you use the API, e.g. you can > discard/reuse the Message but still track the status of your > deliveries. Also, it seems likely that once the Option 1) path > includes the ability to track the status of outgoing deliveries, > the > total surface area balance might fall more in favor of Option (2). > > A possible addendum to Option (2) suggested by Rob in order to deal > with the surface area concerns is adding some kind of > Messenger.ack() that would acknowledge all unacked deliveries > pulled > from the incoming queue. This would enable you to do basic acking > without ever needing to bother with DTWs if you don't care about > them. This could in fact be a nice place to start as it doesn't > necessarily commit us to either path initially. > > FWIW, my bias right now is towards exploring Option (2). I think the > fact that it is less expected is sufficiently mitigated by the fact > that with the addendum there is a very gentle learning curve, and > even > if you explain all the concepts up front, the whole tracking number > analogy makes it fairly intuitive. I can even imagine playing up the > difference as a selling point from a technical marketing perspective. > > --Rafael >
