> Why would a user chose to use this binding instead
> of the WCF client - I guess thats the key question ?
If I understand the previous posts in this thread, the answer is that
people who are comfortable with WCF paradigms will use WCF, and people
who like to think a little closer to AMQP on the
On 05/18/2010 10:49 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
What client are you talking about here Carl ?
C++ and Python have been done. Some list discussion has happened on
Java. Ruby needs to be updated to Python style which missed 0.6, I believe
that is not a big job.
I understand that the update
On 05/18/2010 11:39 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
> I want one WCF client that works with both brokers and interops with
> clients in all languages. I want only one. I want to avoid
> the confusion
> of having more than one, and I want to avoid putting effort into more
> than on
Hi Jonathan,
> I want one WCF client that works with both brokers and interops with
> clients in all languages. I want only one. I want to avoid
> the confusion
> of having more than one, and I want to avoid putting effort into more
> than one
>
> I want the WCF client to use the new addressi
I want one WCF client that works with both brokers and interops with
clients in all languages. I want only one. I want to avoid the confusion
of having more than one, and I want to avoid putting effort into more
than one
I want the WCF client to use the new addressing scheme.
Am I wanting the
There are a host of inflight JIRAs for the Broker 0-10 work - but its not a
short list. Its top priority for me.
Marnie
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
>
>> I'll confess that I'm fairly uncomfortable with any other new .Net
What client are you talking about here Carl ?
Marnie
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
>
>> Another key point is that if we're going to produce 'bindings' we need to
>> get much better at backwards compatibility on Qpid. We ha
On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
Another key point is that if we're going to produce 'bindings' we need to
get much better at backwards compatibility on Qpid. We have existing C++
clients stranded on an old Qpid build as a result of some of our previous
decisions, along with C# use
On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
I'll confess that I'm fairly uncomfortable with any other new .Net API,
especially since the current situation is that we have no client which can
interop across both brokers with all the other clients successfully (with
the Java Broker 0-10 code no
I'll confess that I'm fairly uncomfortable with any other new .Net API,
especially since the current situation is that we have no client which can
interop across both brokers with all the other clients successfully (with
the Java Broker 0-10 code not yet complete/prod ready). I'd rather been
hoping
On 05/17/2010 04:07 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
The contribution simply allows .NET programs in C#, VB, Powershell,
Excel, etc. to access the Qpid C++ messaging API. It is not in the same
category as the qpid/wcf code which adds substantial value over and
above basic messaging.
The advantage of the thin
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Ted Ross wrote:
> I commented on the Jira but I'll jump in on this thread in case folks are
> not reading the Jira comments.
>
> The contribution in question is a thin .Net binding for the new C++
> messaging API. This is why it was placed in the qpid/cpp/binding
I commented on the Jira but I'll jump in on this thread in case folks
are not reading the Jira comments.
The contribution in question is a thin .Net binding for the new C++
messaging API. This is why it was placed in the qpid/cpp/bindings area
and not in the qpid/{dotnet,wcf} areas or in its
On 05/14/2010 11:37 PM, Chuck Rolke wrote:
I must apologize for my part in sticking this code into the code base
before a proper discussion.
Chuck,
you didn't stick the code into the codebase, you attached a patch
demonstrating an interesting (and in my view valuable) approach to a
Jira. I t
v@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:38:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [.net]: some debate please
>
> I don't have a strong view on the 'correct' approach since I'm not
> familiar
> with the .Net components.
>
> However, I a
I don't have a strong view on the 'correct' approach since I'm not familiar
with the .Net components.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with Rafi's comments about dropping this in
without a discussion beforehand (and apologies if I missed one?). If I was
an existing .Net contributer I'd be pretty ha
On 05/11/2010 05:59 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> The current WCF uses the 0-10 API, I would suggest moving the
> WCF client to the updated C++ API. I believe this has been
> agreed to be done at some point before on the list which
> would then be consistent with this work
Ok, as long as s
On 05/12/2010 12:50 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Even if there isn't interest in using this API directly, I think there
is huge benefit to having all the clients share a common architecture as
much as possible. Since the purpose of the messaging API is really to
expose all the features of AMQP whi
Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/12/2010 11:21 AM, Cliff Jansen wrote:
Perhaps it would be useful for somebody to assist this debate by
introducing the messaging API in the .NET context and addressing why,
for example, .NET programmers need this API, but Java programmers
don't. Or why a developer who mi
On 05/12/2010 11:21 AM, Cliff Jansen wrote:
Perhaps it would be useful for somebody to assist this debate by
introducing the messaging API in the .NET context and addressing why,
for example, .NET programmers need this API, but Java programmers
don't. Or why a developer who might be inclined to
Cliff Jansen wrote:
Perhaps it would be useful for somebody to assist this debate by
introducing the messaging API in the .NET context and addressing why,
for example, .NET programmers need this API, but Java programmers
don't. Or why a developer who might be inclined to use WCF should use
this
Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: tross
Date: Mon May 10 20:33:19 2010
New Revision: 942892
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=942892&view=rev
Log:
QPID-2589 - Applied patch from Chuck Rolke.
This commit adds a new component and yet another approach
Perhaps it would be useful for somebody to assist this debate by
introducing the messaging API in the .NET context and addressing why,
for example, .NET programmers need this API, but Java programmers
don't. Or why a developer who might be inclined to use WCF should use
this messaging API instead.
Hi Carl,
> -Original Message-
> From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:cctriel...@redhat.com]
>
> On 05/11/2010 04:28 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
> >>
> >> On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >>> Aut
> -Original Message-
> From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajit...@gmail.com]
>
> While I will leave it to the experts to comment about the
> current approach, may I suggest that we make a prominent
> notice in our download page that we have deprecated the 0-8
> and 0-10 .NET clients.
Goo
On 05/11/2010 05:22 PM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
-- Martin
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 May 2010, at 21:36, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
While I will leave it to the experts to comment about the current
approach, may I suggest that we make a prominent notice in our
download page that we have deprecat
--
Martin
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 May 2010, at 21:36, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
While I will leave it to the experts to comment about the current
approach, may I suggest that we make a prominent notice in our
download page that we have deprecated the 0-8 and 0-10 .NET clients.
I know tha
While I will leave it to the experts to comment about the current
approach, may I suggest that we make a prominent notice in our
download page that we have deprecated the 0-8 and 0-10 .NET clients.
I know that several individuals have put in some very good effort in
the thankless task of propping u
On 05/11/2010 04:28 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: tross
Date: Mon May 10 20:33:19 2010
New Revision: 942892
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=942892&view=rev
Log:
QP
> -Original Message-
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
>
> On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: tross
> > Date: Mon May 10 20:33:19 2010
> > New Revision: 942892
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=942892&view=rev
> > Log:
> > QPID-2589 - Applied
On 05/10/2010 09:33 PM, tr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: tross
Date: Mon May 10 20:33:19 2010
New Revision: 942892
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=942892&view=rev
Log:
QPID-2589 - Applied patch from Chuck Rolke.
This commit adds a new component and yet another approach for .net,
specific
31 matches
Mail list logo
