On 10/10/2013 12:09 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
On 10 October 2013 12:46, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> 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 is currently
published.
My concern is where that is defined to be an expanding, all-encompassing
effort that ring fences whole areas of behaviour and sets itself up as the
only legitimate avenue for exploration.
Do you believe that is what the OASIS TCs are doing? If so in which areas?
The idea of a general policy that any Qpid component must support any
emerging standard from those TCs in a particular area and cannot explore
alternatives or anything that may overlap does feel very much like this.
I am not saying that is what you meant, merely expressing that I would
not be comfortable with such a policy if it was.
Expanding beyond the current specification needs a more diverse source of
ideas and a more open, transparent and collaborative process.
While I agree that a more open process is most definitely desirable, I
would argue that the OASIS TCs (sadly) currently have a much more diverse
membership than Qpid committers.Also note that you do not need to be a
member of OASIS to comment on work going on there. If you (or anyone else)
believe that the work going on in OASIS is misguided you should comment
there [1], not here.
While involved at OASIS I did comment. However, I am not now seeking to
reform the AMQP work at OASIS. Any such effort should indeed take place
there and not here.
Neither am I trying to subvert it. I have no issue with you or anyone
else working on projects within Qpid related to specifications you are
progressing at OASIS, providing anyone else can join in and contribute
ideas.
All I am saying is that I don't consider OASIS to have authority over
what other work goes on in Qpid, again provided that work is done in an
open and collaborative manner which listens to criticism of the approach.
Collaboration doesn't have to mean that everyone agrees on one point of
view. A degree of exploration of alternatives is in my view healthy at
this point provided we all conform to the underlying specification as
published and strive to ensure the various voices in the community are
heard and that whatever is produced serves the needs of those using it.
I myself will very happily contribute to, align with and support any
effort that I see emerging with genuine widespread support from existing
communities. If that is a spec from OASIS, great. If it's an idea from
one of the other implementers, great. I want any additional standard to
be adopted on merit not by fiat.
In the end I believe we want the same thing, we have the same goal of
richer interoperability and I do firmly believe that while in theory we
have different views on how best to achieve that we can collaborate
effectively on the practical side of aiding AMQP adoption and on
concrete issues we are as often as not likely to find a happy compromise.
Now, as to improving the process at Qpid and building a more diverse set
of contributors, that I am very much interested in and this is the
perfect place to discuss it. I would be eager to hear from anyone with
ideas that could help.
While I may not be entirely happy with the OASIS process, the value in AMQP
is in standardisation.
The value is in practical interoperability and interchangeability.
Though I personally don't think OASIS is the best route to achieving
that, I respect your view that it is. There should be room for both of
us to help users reap the benefits that AMQP promised.
If Qpid can be a place where multiple parties can
come together and work together then it may be a good place for de-facto
standards to emerge.
I want to be really clear on this point as it comes up several times
here and in previous mails.
I said that I believe the emergence of de-facto standards is something
to be nurtured and encouraged. I think Qpid can have a part in that, but
I think it can *only* be a part. It *must* involve other communities,
projects and products. So I am certainly *not* suggesting that I believe
that work at Qpid should be taken as a de-facto standard.
[...]
Historically Qpid has not been seen as a neutral place. For better or
worse, there are a preponderance of committers from one organisation. In
order to counter perceptions of a lack of neutrality I think work has to be
done to bring more people in before we try to sell ourselves as a neutral
venue for emerging standards.
Again, just so there is no misunderstanding, I am *not* 'selling Qpid'
as such a venue...
Until we can actually demonstrate that Qpid
is such a place I think it is presumptuous of us to try to claim de-facto
standards for our work.
...and I have made no such claim.
A de-facto standard is not something you can claim. It is something you
prove by showing the different interoperable implementations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
