On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:13 -0500, Steve Huston wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I'll respond in more depth tomorrow, but for now I'd just like to note > that I'm not proposing to add a new transport - I just want to stick a > shim between the existing transport and the aio, on Windows only.
Maybe we are talking at cross purposes, I'm not sure, surely by definition adding a transport that was not previously supported is adding a new transport regardless of the way you do it. I think you are trying to argue that your strategy for adding this new ssl transport is low risk. I'm arguing 2 things: 1. I don't think I like your strategy, but I'm not 100% clear what it is exactly yet. The whole Connector layer is a shim layer so adding another shim seems to me to be likely to complicate things and hinder refactoring clean ups to merge the existing posix ssl and tcp transports into more maintainable code. 2. I'm planning to put out a release candidate at the end of the week and I don't want to destabilise existing well working code in the next few days. I'm sorry that windows ssl will not be in 0.6, but I'm very open to making the 0.7 release cycle very short if there are features that people want to release very soon. All that being said I'd be keen to see your proposed code for review before checkin. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
