On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Then why did you commit it? :). >> > > OK. So, I was fixing the existing SQS kernal and Manjula too was doing some > work (adding SQS error codes, authz, etc) on the same source. At some point > I figured out that merging would become a nightmare if we continued to make > changes and wanted to merge and commit stuff so that we both could continue > the work without any hassle. The SQS module is still in its early days and I > do not think anybody else uses it. Therefore I do not think a functionality > glitch would be a major concern "at this point" unless there were any build > breaks. > The first thing you should have done was to write a POC which proves that the method you suggests works fine with JMS. Then we should have replaced it with the current implementation. You have all these issues since at first place you try to replace existing implementation without checking how exactly your method works. > > >> As I remember Manjula also did a similar thing but we did not pick that >> since there was those issues with that. >> > > Yes. He did not get it right. The existing implementation (SQS kernal) is > crappy and unstable. > We always in the agreement that the method you propose is better than using a temp Queue. The missing point was there was no proper proof how exactly it suppose to work. > I will explain why it is so and why the model I suggested is the proper > approach once I have ironed out those functional glitches. > +1. Please send a mail. thanks, Amila. > > Thanks, > Danushka >
_______________________________________________ Carbon-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/carbon-dev
