In case anyone thinks World War 3 is about to break out, an approach
emerged during the Proton task force meeting today that is probably
acceptable to all the main protagonists.
A brief summary follows. I've tried to avoid too many value judgements in
the summary, to avoid fanning the embers.
- W
When I asked the original question I had been assuming that the contrib
modules were intended to be using the proton-api interfaces, but had to
resort to concrete types for tactical reasons pending a more complete API.
If that assumption were true, then using factory interfaces rather than
constru
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 17:36, Phil Harvey wrote:
> >
> > As part of the Proton JNI work, I would like to remove all calls to
> > proton-j implementation constructors from "client code". I intend that
> > factories will be used instead [1], thereb
Darryl L. Pierce created PROTON-201:
---
Summary: Provide a C++ Messenger and Message class
Key: PROTON-201
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-201
Project: Qpid Proton
Issue Typ
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Keith W wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 15:40, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > Yeah, it appears to be a bug. I checked in a potential fix on trunk. Give
> > it a shot and see if it's still an issue.
> >
> > --Rafael
>
> Thanks, that has indeed addressed the issue. The M
On 24 January 2013 15:49, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> Firstly I think it would be helpful if you made clear the requirements you
>> consider to be essential, nice to have, unimportant and/or detrimental.
>>
>> On 23 January 2013 20:17, Rafael
You not actually going to prohibit folks for using the old constructors are
you?
I'd say adding factories is a good thing, and you should encourage folks to
use the factories instead of the constructors, but please don't stop folks
from using the constructors directly.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> Firstly I think it would be helpful if you made clear the requirements you
> consider to be essential, nice to have, unimportant and/or detrimental.
>
> On 23 January 2013 20:17, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:01 AM,
On 24 January 2013 14:43, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 23 January 2013 19:09, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>
>> > I've added another wiki page that documents the proton release steps as
>> > best I can remember. I'll updated it more during the
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 19:09, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
> > I've added another wiki page that documents the proton release steps as
> > best I can remember. I'll updated it more during the 0.4 release:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/displ
On 23 January 2013 15:40, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Yeah, it appears to be a bug. I checked in a potential fix on trunk. Give
> it a shot and see if it's still an issue.
>
> --Rafael
Thanks, that has indeed addressed the issue. The Message system tests
which previously failed now run cleanly aga
On 23 January 2013 17:36, Phil Harvey wrote:
>
> As part of the Proton JNI work, I would like to remove all calls to
> proton-j implementation constructors from "client code". I intend that
> factories will be used instead [1], thereby abstracting away whether the
> implementation is pure Java or
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13561520#comment-13561520
]
Cliff Jansen commented on PROTON-159:
-
I have broken up the original patch into 4 more
13 matches
Mail list logo
