+1 on,
*. Calling the new JMS impl "Qpid JMS".
*. Encouraging new development to use this client.
*. Add a clear note explaining the current situation with our JMS clients.
*. Naming the " qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client" to include the word "prototype",
which is what it is at best.
Rajith
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> > 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> > (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> > the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
> > the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
> > client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
> > doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
> > tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
> > think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
> > 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
> > alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
> > version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
> > some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
> > not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
> >
>
> All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
> strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1 gets
> the point across well enough.
>
>
> > 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)?
> >
>
> I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
> qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
> JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to direct
> users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>
> Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
> "prototype"?
>
> On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being visible but
> not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra navigation.
> The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the featured
> offerings (especially the former).
>
