qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component
Date Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:36:27 GMT
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, work is
> ongoing at OASIS and other products are (I assume) implementing
> them.

One of the biggest lessons I've learned during the years of AMQP's 
painful evolution, is that with standards, the technical details are not 
the only important thing. Indeed often they aren't even the most 
important thing. For want of a better word, 'social' aspects are critical.

For me, this is the area where AMQP made the biggest mistakes. Now that 
1.0 is here and is becoming a reality, I really hoped the same mistakes 
would not be perpetuated. AMQP has a history of mandating things that 
no-one implements or that are implemented grudgingly. It has a history 
of willing participants feeling excluded. (The dearth of practical 
choice for 1.0 clients is still a very real problem).

As I said before, my interest is not in reforming OASIS. My interest is 
in the Qpid project and in demonstrable interoperability and choice. I 
believe open source works best when software is produced by developers 
who want to do it, who feel personally engaged in and excited about what 
they are implementing, not when they feel coerced by outside forces.

The AMQP core specification is here and I fully accept its authority. 
The only 'authority' I recognise beyond that is the Qpid community and 
evidence of consensus with other products, particularly other open 
source projects.

A key principle at Apache is the 'faithful implementation of standards'. 
I firmly believe in that. The standards we do adopt we should implement 
faithfully. But simply because Qpid was founded to implement and promote 
AMQP does not mean that any additional 'emerging standard' being worked 
on under that name has special authority over the space it stakes out 
for itself.

That is not to say that I think they should be ignored. If there is no 
good reason not to adopt them, doing so makes sense. However I 
personally do not accept the notion that I have any obligation to engage 
with the OASIS process to address whatever issues I may have. My 
obligation is to discuss my views first and foremost with the Qpid 
community and the users of whatever software I am working on. If the 
view of the community is that only the 'emerging standard' can be 
implemented, so be it. It is the authority of the community I would 
respect there, not that of OASIS.

I stress again that I *want* genuine interoperability and real choice 
for users. I'm just not prepared to restrict myself to an approach and 
process I have lost faith in.

This is my own *personal* viewpoint and does not in anyway reflect the 
views of my employer or that of any colleague, friend or associate!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message