>
> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>
Speaking as someone who is very new to Qpid (and knows nothing about the
differences between the different JMS clients), I think it's essential that
at the top level (i.e., qpid.apache.org) there is a cogent description of
the different JMS clients, e.g.,
Qpid JMS: an AMQP-fluent JMS implementation that supports AMQP 0.9,
0.9.1, and 1.0
- NEWCLIENT_NAME: AMQP 1.0 JMS client, recommended for new projects,
- qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client: AMQP 1.0 JMS client that's legacy? stable?
- qpid-client: AMQP 0.9 JMS client
In particular, explaining when you should use the new 1.0 client vs the old
one is important -- otherwise, someone like myself will either have to post
to the mailing list, or read a bunch of threads to try to figure out which
one to use. In my opinion, the name, while important, won't convey
sufficient information to make it obvious which a user should choose, and
to me, that should be a goal of the front page of qpid.apache.org.
Hope this helps.
Richard
