On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I still think it needs debate, > > For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API > model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does > that relate to this? > > This discussing needs to be had a bit more broadly so that all involved in > the client can contribute / agree. > > I would like to see agreement between Rob, Rafi, Rajith, & Andrew for > example > on this topic. > > (unless it has happened and I missed it, if I see acks then I'll be happy) > Carl. > >
I want to see the proposal from Andrew before commenting in detail, but in general this is going on at a lower layer than the API stuff... here we're considering the interface down to the IO layer. At the moment this is a bit (no, a *lot*) of a mess, and is completely different on the 0-10 codepath and the 0-8/0-9/0-9-1 codepath. There's no real reason for the interface down to the transport from the different protocol stacks to be different. What I understand Andrew to be doing is tidying up where Aidan left off in removing dependencies on particular implementations of an IO layer (e.g. MINA) from the code, and providing a single interface that can be used by the current (and future) protocol versions. As part of this I believe he'll be encapsulating the current MINA code behind the interface so that it is exposed in a similar way to the IoTransport that was written as part of the 0-10 work. The initial driver for this work is to allow for the running of "InVM" tests on the 0-10 codepath in the same way as they are run for 0-8, 0-9 and 0-9-1 currently. getting these tests running again needs to be a priority for us in terms of proving the Java Broker for 0-10. The work is really orthogonal to work on adding the new API to the Java client and then writing a JMS client library on top of that API. While I agree that such an approach could greatly simplify the client - it would involve a major re-write which we would definitely want to discuss and plan in advance. I don't think there is any real risk involved in the work Andrew is discussing, and it will bring significant benefits in terms of allowing us to use alternative IO layers, and unifying the interface used underneath 0-10 and the other versions of the protocol. -- Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
