Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2767210C1E for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97346 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2013 09:58:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-qpid-users-archive@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 97315 invoked by uid 500); 10 Oct 2013 09:58:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 97303 invoked by uid 99); 10 Oct 2013 09:58:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.53] (HELO mail-qe0-f53.google.com) (209.85.128.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:58:50 +0000 Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id cy11so1630339qeb.26 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=hRgC2dyBKk5Gpx9NshcIBsVK7Erh3iqBwxX8pFKnPQs=; b=hEAoHRH6kheMZ8BP/AprxLchJWw8/vDKCS62bB215z9lG3XcGnzsJos/9seERRic7g S7m4d4B9o5BPiWdMt7qcFfSdjQ2KPIeIkc9SPjh19dMhfeo1EPMpE8810x/0bR+x6eLc nYIgcUz3iWmckcS9WGlYGcqqsd0cqEsFKmjF5BN11Z2XyFkuYR6xuopzS/f9vmgKX3WG cZc9gWbq06euI5hQhILCxOCSWzYcIvQhjU1d8QNjhVTmODooqKIIpgffddfxVh8aasDN d0MlHIZsV2auBYDpwYCl6hUXIC+9h/zL7JAErrbSuUEGRnPCivca2o4q9YmR6UJnGQsf qGgA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.70.129 with SMTP id m1mr1999895qeu.69.1381399109107; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.80.229 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <52567847.6020406@redhat.com> References: <525574AE.6050008@redhat.com> <52558D29.8010108@redhat.com> <52567847.6020406@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:58:29 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Qpid Dispatch Router component From: Rob Godfrey To: "users@qpid.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4721fe31210a04e8600b75 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b4721fe31210a04e8600b75 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 10 October 2013 11:49, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 10/10/2013 09:38 AM, Rob Godfrey wrote: > >> My main concern is that I believe that Qpid should be primarily directed >> at >> implementing AMQP standards, and building resuable toolkits and components >> that fit into any AMQP network. I'd be very concerned if we were >> inventing >> alternative management protocols, or building components that only >> interoperated with other Qpid tools. >> >> So, personally I'd like to see statement around components saying that >> they >> will be fully implementing emerging AMQP Management, AMQP addressing, etc. >> standards, and that we as a project then ensure we stick to these goals. >> > > Interoperability with other AMQP compliant components both in and out of > Qpid and Apache is certainly key. That is what AMQP is all about and what > Qpid should be about. > > Faithful implementation of the existing AMQP specification is clearly a > requirement as that is central to the charter of the project. Where any > auxiliary or emerging specifications are adopted by a component, whether > they are AMQP related or not, they should be compliant with that. > > However, having a general policy where all Qpid components are required to > implement whatever 'emerging standards' come out of the OASIS AMQP TCs is > not something I am comfortable with. > Saying that all Qpid components implement all emerging standards is clearly not what I am saying, because not all standards are appropriate for all components. However I think the point of Qpid (vs. any other messaging implementation at Apache or elsewhere) is to implement the AMQP specification. I'd generally question why work was being carried out in Qpid (as opposed to elsewhere) if the work is not based on existing or emerging AMQP standards. > > The Qpid community as a whole needs to have a say in how future features > will work through an open, collaborative process (open to _anyone_, even > those primarily involved with other AMQP related projects or products). > > i completely agree. > Personally I think this would be better for AMQP as well. Allowing and > encouraging the emergence of grass-roots driven, de-facto 'standards' > developed in and between open, collaborative and transparent communities > and backed up by proven interoperable implementations, which can then form > the basis for official de-jure standardisation. > > Possibly, but I think that any such efforts at de-facto standardisation must first reach out to other AMQP implementers and ensure there is a broad agreement on direction. If the Qpid project can be a vehicle for doing this, then great - however currently that is not how Qpid is operating and I would be very concerned at us trying to claim any sort of work done within Qpid as a "de-facto" standard. Where there is qork going on in AMQP then we as the Qpid community should be ensuring that we feed back to that and raise questions/objections as necessary (whether we are part of the OASIS group or not - feedback from the public is possible). -- Rob ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.**org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org > > --047d7b4721fe31210a04e8600b75--