Commit it on a branch.
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
The change is too big for a patch. I'd rather commit on a branch.
Another option is to refactor it some more so that it becomes part of
the new
, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing
from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing
from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation
Of
Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in
growing
from
the current JMS implementation. I've been
The current JMS rewrite by Nathan, Adrian, and Bela is going quite well
and we will be replacing the old system in the fall. Don't work on a
codebase that is going to be retired and needs to live in depracated
mode for awhile. A refactoring isn't what is needed in the JMS
subsystem.
I don't want
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 23:41, Nathan Phelps wrote
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with
JMS than
the original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We
are doing a
rewrite
I guess I had it good. Norbert made a good start. At least
basic pub/sub worked. That's better than starting from scratch.
Enough
And what interaction has there been with Nathan who originally responded to
the rewrite query?
--
Scott Stark
Chief Technology Officer
JBoss Group, LLC
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi guys,
Over the past two weeks I have started to make a few
Hiram,
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with JMS than the
original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We are doing a rewrite
so patches to the old JBossMQ have a limited lifetime. That means that
changes made to the old JBossMQ will most likely not be part of HEAD or
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not.
So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed
On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 23:41, Nathan Phelps wrote:
In line...
Hiram,
As you may know, we are going in a different direction with JMS than the
original architecture coded by Norbert Lataille. We are doing a rewrite
I guess I had it good. Norbert made a good start. At least basic
pub/sub
12 matches
Mail list logo
