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 Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:07:14 GMT
On 10/12/2013 11:40 AM, Fraser Adams wrote:
> a primary concern and motivation has to be standardisation,
> particularly Open Standards and they must be seen to be platform
> neutral - so fundamentally AMQP first and Qpid second. To me that's a
> reasonable position too because, as has been expressed elsewhere, one
> of the compelling reasons of "why AMQP" is because it's an Open
> Standard and *should be* interoperable.

I don't disagree with any of that. Compliance with the current 
specification and a commitment to demonstrable interoperability around 
that is, and must be, fundamental to Qpid.

I do also very much want to see interoperability extend to areas not 
directly covered by this specification.

What I am uncomfortable with is the view that any initiative, wherever 
and however it was begun, has from the start some unassailable dominion 
over the area it stakes out for itself.

> Sadly that wasn't really achieved for 0.10, but it certainly seems to
> be the case for 1.0 which I feel we ought to embrace with a passion.

The history of the 0-10 specification is actually interesting to 
consider here. Though it was the de-jure standard, having passed by 
unanimous vote through the old working group process, it was clear from 
the start that there was no real consensus behind it (even from some of 
those voting, not to mention anyone not represented in the process). 
Though supported by all Qpid components, it was implemented by nothing 
else. That is a pattern I don't want to see repeated.

While achieving real consensus is hard, slow and often frustrating, 
'official' standards that aren't widely supported are of limited value.

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

View raw message