It was pointed out to me that sloppy wording on my part may have led to
an impression other than the one intended. At the risk of digging a
bigger hole, I'd like to try to correct that.
On 10/11/2013 12:36 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
As I said before, my interest is not in reforming OASIS. My intere
On 10/12/2013 11:40 AM, Fraser Adams wrote:
a primary concern and motivation has to be standardisation,
particularly Open Standards and they must be seen to be platform
neutral - so fundamentally AMQP first and Qpid second. To me that's a
reasonable position too because, as has been expressed els
I'd like to wade in slightly here if I may as I've been following this
thread with great interest.
I guess that I might be in a vaguely interesting position as although my
employers are interested in and make use of AMQP/Qpid my contributions
to this group have been entirely at a personal leve
On the topic of names and perhaps following the same track as particles
with Proton, can I suggest "Boson" in honour of the forthcoming Nobel
award to Professor Peter Higgs. It kind of seems appropriate on a couple
of levels?
Frase
On 11/10/13 13:47, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/11/2013 01:32 PM,
On 10/11/2013 06:33 PM, William Henry wrote:
Yes Ted, and Gordon I believe, has been involved in trying to get this feedback
based on our experiences.
Simplify to clarify: I am no longer involved in any way with OASIS.
Further, any opinions I expressed while I was there were my own and did
n
and help to get the eventual standard(s)
>> worked out in a way that's been proven in the field.
>>
>> -Steve
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>> From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 PM
>>>
rg
Subject: Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component
I'd also add, because I'm sure that some of you wonder why is William
weighing in? What has he to do with AMQP/Qpid anyway besides being
historically linked to it?
I've travelled globally talking about AMQP and Qpid to investment b
mmittees of their experience and help to get the eventual standard(s)
> worked out in a way that's been proven in the field.
>
> -Steve
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 1
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: William Henry [mailto:whe...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component
>
>
> I'd also add, because I'm sure that some of you wonder why is Willia
I'd also add, because I'm sure that some of you wonder why is William weighing
in? What has he to do with AMQP/Qpid anyway besides being historically linked
to it?
I've travelled globally talking about AMQP and Qpid to investment banks,
government agencies, telecoms, animation studios, stock e
+1. Great post Gordon. Again something to be captured in Qpid community
pages/documentation.
I'd also add we need to be innovating fast around AMQP now that we have 1.0. We
can't always wait on the OASIS process. It has taken a very long time to get
here (not OASIS). There were some significant
On 10/11/2013 08:47 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/11/2013 01:32 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
I have no love for the name. But it has to be called *something* :)
Indeed, and I reiterate how hard good naming is.
Assuming 'Qpid Router' is undesirable as either making to big a claim
(there will never be
On 10/11/2013 01:32 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
I have no love for the name. But it has to be called *something* :)
Indeed, and I reiterate how hard good naming is.
Assuming 'Qpid Router' is undesirable as either making to big a claim
(there will never be any other Qpid thing that routes) or provide
I have no love for the name. But it has to be called *something* :)
On 10/11/2013 07:29 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
One other point, I do think 'Dispatch' is a poor name. It is neither
distinctive nor descriptive.
Appending 'Router' to it only underlines this in my view. That at
least begins to ex
On 10/11/2013 07:19 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/11/2013 11:52 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 11 October 2013 11:54, Gordon Sim wrote:
Second, the code in Dispatch Router is in theory designed around a
toolkit
for building AMQP 'containers' of different kinds, with the router
being
one such e
On 10/11/2013 12:27 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
The argument for evolving "de facto" standards is not really
pertinent here (in the context of addressing and management). De
facto standards emerge when some product/idea is developed and turned
loose and people take off and run with it. In this case,
One other point, I do think 'Dispatch' is a poor name. It is neither
distinctive nor descriptive.
Appending 'Router' to it only underlines this in my view. That at least
begins to explain what the component does. However 'Dispatch' then adds
very little else.
That said I know how hard naming
On 11 October 2013 13:19, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 11:52 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 11 October 2013 11:54, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Second, the code in Dispatch Router is in theory designed around a
>>> toolkit
>>> for building AMQP 'containers' of different kinds, with the
On 10/11/2013 11:52 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 11 October 2013 11:54, Gordon Sim wrote:
Second, the code in Dispatch Router is in theory designed around a toolkit
for building AMQP 'containers' of different kinds, with the router being
one such example (another might be a proxy focused more
On 11 October 2013 11:54, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
>
> Second, the code in Dispatch Router is in theory designed around a toolkit
> for building AMQP 'containers' of different kinds, with the router being
> one such example (another might be a proxy focused more on enforcing ACLs
> at the edge). In t
On 10 October 2013 20:07, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2013 11:20 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> On 10 October 2013 15:35, Ted Ross wrote:
>>
>> On 10/10/2013 04:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
[...]
> So here's the root of the issue. The question is whether or not Dispatch
> is too tangent
So, just to be clear the reason I asked the question is to try to help us
frame better a scope statement.
People often ask why we currently have both a Java Broker and a C++ broker,
and I think it's a fair question :-). If we start building up Dispatch as
a component and someone says "hey - it'd
I don't claim to speak with any authority on Dispatch Router, but fwiw,
here's my answer to these two specific questions:
On 10/10/2013 04:20 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
How does a router differ from a broker?
I tend to have a more general view of what 'broker' might mean, but in
the context of st
Hi guys,
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Godfrey [mailto:rob.j.godf...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:21 AM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component
>
> On 10 October 2013 15:35, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> >
&
On 10/10/2013 11:20 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 10 October 2013 15:35, Ted Ross wrote:
On 10/10/2013 04:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily directed
at implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable toolkits and
components that fit int
On 10 October 2013 15:35, Ted Ross wrote:
>
> On 10/10/2013 04:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily directed
>> at implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable toolkits and
>> components that fit into any AMQP network. I'd be very co
On 10/10/2013 12:09 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 10 October 2013 12:46, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 10/10/2013 10:58 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
I think the point of Qpid (vs. any other messaging
implementation at Apache or elsewhere) is to implement the AMQP
specification.
I have no disagreement when the
On 10/10/2013 04:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily
directed at implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable
toolkits and components that fit into any AMQP network. I'd be very
concerned if we were inventing alternative management pr
On 10 October 2013 12:46, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 10:58 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> I think the point of Qpid (vs. any other messaging
>> implementation at Apache or elsewhere) is to implement the AMQP
>> specification.
>>
>
> I have no disagreement when the AMQP specification is what i
On 10/10/2013 10:58 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
I think the point of Qpid (vs. any other messaging
implementation at Apache or elsewhere) is to implement the AMQP
specification.
I have no disagreement when the AMQP specification is what is currently
published.
My concern is where that is defined
On 10 October 2013 11:49, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 09:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>
>> My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily directed
>> at
>> implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable toolkits and components
>> that fit into any AMQP network. I'd be ver
On 10/09/2013 08:04 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
There are a lot of new ideas floating around, some of them overlapping.
I think Qpid is a perfect place to explore and develop new technologies
based on AMQP. This will cause some confusion and force us to work at
articulating what we are doing and thinkin
On 10/10/2013 09:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily directed at
implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable toolkits and components
that fit into any AMQP network. I'd be very concerned if we were inventing
alternative management prot
This is an excellent post which I think highlights the need for us to
properly define the scopes of our current components, their roadmaps, and
the vision we have for Qpid and AMQP 1.0.
I know some people have already replied in thread, but would it seem like a
good idea if we used these questions
On 9 October 2013 19:06, Ted Ross wrote:
> Rob,
>
> These are good points. Let me start with management.
>
> I view Dispatch as a bit of a testing ground for the emerging AMQP
> Management specification. I would claim that at this point, the
> specification is not ready for prime-time. With re
Adding some more specific bits to what Ted covered in his mail.though I
now see he just beat me to doing so himself, oh well :P
On 9 October 2013 19:22, Fraser Adams wrote:
> Hey all,
> The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
> I've tentatively mentioned before
Now, to answer your actual questions... See inline below.
On 10/09/2013 02:22 PM, Fraser Adams wrote:
Hey all,
The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
raise 'cause it probably makes me seem a b
Ted,
Can someone add your text to the community web pages and link parts to
appropriate pages?
i.e. can we use Frase's and your posts to augment the community pages rather
than just leaving here in list archives?
William
- Original Message -
> Frase,
>
> This is an excellent post,
Great post! +1.
The community needs to do more to explain, document, and promote.
William
- Original Message -
> Hey all,
> The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
> I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
> raise 'cause it prob
Frase,
This is an excellent post, and I believe quite relevant. I'll try to
address your questions at an abstract level rather than point-by-point.
Your confusion is not unique, but quite justified.
AMQP 1.0 is simply a wire-level protocol specification for symmetric
point-to-point data co
Hey all,
The thread below on the dev list has prompted me to ask something that
I've tentatively mentioned before, but am still a bit embarrassed to
raise 'cause it probably makes me seem a bit stupid :-( here goes
anyway.
So I've kind of held off going down the AMQP 1.0 path partly due
41 matches
Mail list logo
