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: Proton API layout proposal
Date Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:18:00 GMT
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Justin Ross <justin.ross@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Rafael Schloming <rhs@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>> A couple of comments in no particular order...
>> The "Core user model and uitility classes" description could be
>> misinterpreted on a quick read. Maybe go with "Core protocol model..." or
>> something like that? (Really all these APIs are for users, so it seems
>> weird to mention it.) Also the utility classes mentioned here sound like
>> they overlap with the util package. What is that actually referring to?
> Yes, good point.  I'll go with protocol instead.
> If I could, I'd make util go away.  It's for low-level things (not Proton
> extensions, but language library extensions) that we wish to make public.
> The best example we currently have is URL.

I should say also that I since there's just one utility of this kind so
far, and since we will have extras/contrib/adapters for things such as
BlockingConnection, I am content to drop proton.util and move URL to the
top level.

I would then consider a proton.logging group if there were enough things to
put there.

> Reference points:
>  -
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=qpid-proton.git;a=tree;f=examples/python
>  - http://people.apache.org/~jross/proton-apidoc-draft-2/group__types.html
>  -
> http://qpid.apache.org/releases/qpid-proton-0.8/protocol-engine/java/api/index.html

Gah, html frames got me.  I meant to link to the list of proton-j types.


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