On 05/14/2014 10:23 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
My interest is mostly around conveying the main component being doing the messaging (e.g. Qpid Messaging C++ Client, ActiveMQ Broker) rather than the application, but I can see that could be useful too in some cases.
Yes, and I don't want to overcomplicate things. In some cases 'product' might be a little ambiguous is all.
Making product be a map of name:version entries would certainly allow conveying more information, but could also make it harder to use the information for anything except blind display, as you would need a clearer idea in advance of what is going to be there to do much else with it given each 'aggregate product' could convey different things and may even end up giving different map key names to the same effective sub-component (e.g they might say proton-engine, or perhaps just proton).
Agreed.
That said, I imagine that kind of thing could be an issue anyway whether it was a map or just a simple value because it ultimately depends on if/how the information is populated in the first place.
Related to that, would a separate version be needed, or could that be included in the product? The main case I can think of where you might want programmatic access to this is in choosing (hopefully temporary!) workarounds for different interop issues.
