On 02/19/2015 08:01 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Any more opinions out there on the name/version of the new client? If
not, I'll likely proceed to update the version to 0.1.0[-SNAPSHOT],
leave the module names as qpid-jms-foo, and begin working on setting
up a Jenkins job to publish snapshots to repository.apache.org later
today or tomorrow.
Robbie
I like the idea of just letting the new client supplant the old one
using the QPid JMS name. I'm pretty sure no matter what we called it
there'd be confusion so I think its better to just try and do a good job
of making things clear on the website and answer the question as they
come up. Over time this should all work itself out.
On 18 February 2015 at 22:39, Steve Huston <shus...@riverace.com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:41 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, 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.
Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want to do,
but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
+1 to that.
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".
Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely appropriate
name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been able to think of
anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of whether its a bit overloaded.
I'm happy to leave it as it is if people think we can manage things going
forward though.
I agree with Justin to position the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client as Qpid JMS, even
at the risk of some short term confusion.
Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the
word "prototype"?
I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd possibly go
with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite possibly leave it
unchanged.
I think that leaving it as is is fine, and make the distinction on the web
site, aiming to have just the Qpid JMS after a small number of releases.
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).
+1
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.b...@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
