qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Proton API layout proposal
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:52:44 GMT
On 02/18/2015 02:28 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
>>   To amplify a little, the point was that the two things currently in the
>> utils module are ways of adapting the reactive, non-blocking, event-driven
>> style to some other style (messenger is in my view a similar sort of
>> thing). Though it is certainly more narrow, I think its also more helpful.
>> The other aspect to these is that they aren't yet considered as
>> fully-baked as the reactive core. I certainly don't object to them being in
>> an extras namespace to denote that, until we are more comfortable we have
>> the interfaces right. You could also however indicate that through
>> documentation or some 'experimental' annotation.
> I agree we don't necessarily need to signal bakedness in the package name,
> I think it's good to think of it as an orthogonal dimension. I'm not quite
> sure I follow the reasoning for proton.adapters though. That sounds to me
> like somewhere we'd put stuff for integrations, e.g. maybe the tornado
> stuff.

I see these things as providing an alternative API on top of the 
reactive style API. Which to me is what an adapter does.

To me the tornado integration is more of a plugin.

I'm not adamant about the 'adapters' name though, just saying its clear 
to me(!). I really don't like 'contrib' though. For one thing it makes 
no logical sense to me. How are things more 'contributed' than anything 
else? I think 'extras' is actually a clearer way to describe the 
layering you mention. I don't mind that, though it is a little vague. (I 
think an adapter is also clearly layered).

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

View raw message