Hi Rajith,
Why not use the CallBackHandlerRegistry to automatically pick the
mechanism from the intersection of the supported mechanisms from the
broker and client? Or is this more to say only use GSSAPI? Might still
be nice to be able to automatically pick an available mechanism when
you don't
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1628?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie updated QPID-1628:
-
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
Move shared state from AMQMessage to QueueEntry
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
let's bring this thread back on topic
straw poll, select one.
[ ] 0.5
[ ] 1.5
I'm in favour of 0.5. It's probably worth having an official [VOTE] on
this, I suspect some people may have killfiled this thread.
Hi all,could you (when you have time) be so kindly to run the QMan test
suite in order to see if there's any failure?In this case please send me the
test result...
Thanks
Andrea
2009/2/9 Andrea Gazzarini a.gazzar...@gmail.com
Martin,Rafael, any news on your side?
This morning Arnaud ran
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
let's bring this thread back on topic
straw poll, select one.
[ ] 0.5
[ ] 1.5
I'm in favour of 0.5. It's probably worth having an official [VOTE] on
this, I suspect some people may
Hello Martin,
Thanks for raising this point.
I was actually going to start a thread on this last night, but was a bit too
sleepy:).
I was aware of the CallBackHandlerRegistry and the related classes.
In fact I had some of that code duplicated in the common module that I
removed in rev 742269.
Thanks for the feedback, unless I get any more feedback, I will consider
this ready to give to Apache PR.
Carl
*The Apache Software Foundation Names Qpid a Top-Level Project*
/Open source messaging implementation built on the AMQP standard
promoted to self-governed position by community
Martin,
As I mentioned I got rid of some duplicated code as the same functionality
is available in the client module. There is still a bit more.
The AMQPCallbackHandler and the UsernamePasswordCallback handler in the
common module are duplicates of the AMQCallbackHandler and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1630?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Martin Ritchie reassigned QPID-1630:
Assignee: Martin Ritchie
Provide unified message creation mechanism (MessageFactory)
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1626?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Aidan Skinner reassigned QPID-1626:
---
Assignee: Martin Ritchie (was: Aidan Skinner)
This should be all set now
Pluggable
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-1626?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Aidan Skinner updated QPID-1626:
Status: Ready To Review (was: In Progress)
Pluggable authorization modules
I think we should have a third option:
Stay with Mx for now, M5
Martin
On 09/02/2009, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com
wrote:
let's bring this thread back on topic
straw poll, select
Martin Ritchie wrote:
I think we should have a third option:
Stay with Mx for now, M5
I don't think there is any point in that, let's close the issue
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
After much lengthy debate, cast your vote now please:
[ ] 0.5 style
[ ] 1.5 style
I'm starting to have dreams about version numbers.
Marnie
[X] 0.5 style
[ ] 1.5 style
-Steve
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
I am +1 for 0.5
Regards,
Rajith
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steve Huston shus...@riverace.com wrote:
[X] 0.5 style
[ ] 1.5 style
-Steve
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
[ ] 0.5 style
[X] 1.5 style
RG
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be 1.0
Why wasn't this offered as an option - I know at least one other
person wanted that on the list?
-- Rob
2009/2/9 Robert Greig robert.j.gr...@gmail.com:
[ ] 0.5 style
[X] 1.5 style
RG
2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com:
I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be 1.0
I think it would be good to have a discussion - hopefully leading to
consensus (!) - on what people think we need to have achieved to merit
a 1.x release. To my mind, if people
(moving this to another thread so as to make tallying the vote easier)
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Robert Greig robert.j.gr...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/9 Robert Godfrey rob.j.godf...@gmail.com:
I'd rather stay on M5 and work towards a release which can be 1.0
I think it would be good
20 matches
Mail list logo
