qpid-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Ross <justin.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:59:32 GMT
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@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.


> 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".

Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
"prototype"?

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).

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message