Robert Godfrey wrote:
2009/12/1 Robert Greig <[email protected]>
2009/12/1 Rafael Schloming <[email protected]>:
I think the point for this thread is that if it is windows-only then it
isn't really a substitute for the existing dotnet clients which work (in
as
much as they have ever worked) on mono.
Well that assumes that running on mono is a goal? Do we have any users
of the .NET client on Mono?
IKVM is a way of running Java. I have no idea whether IKVM implements
enough of the JDK libraries to enable the Qpid Java client to run
under it but let's assume for the moment that it does. Further, let us
assume that some important change in 0.6 or another upcoming release
breaks that. Do we say that we should not proceed with that change
because IKVM isn't supported?
Not quite the same thing is it? A better analogy might be to imagine that
the JMS client required the use of the compiled C++ libraries and say we
only supported Java on Windows and Linux... I think that to have implemented
the JMS client in that way would have been a poor choice.
If there are a lot of devs/ users that want it that and put the effort
in to build such a thing and maintain it, for
example create a c++ shim for JMS for RDMA/IB. And a strong community
forms then why not?
I.e. Those that do have more say in the definition of the model, and the
debate conclusion should come
from those investigating into the module being invested in. I.e. if a
set of people show up and make IKVM
work and support it, why not?
Does this invalidate another client that is also being actively
maintained, that is clearly no.
Carl.
