On 07/12/2012 10:26 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
There are two reasons why I think amqp-libraries@ is strictly superior
to proton@.
Firstly, while you may consider "proton" as a distinct stream of work,
I'm not sure how that works with something like the messaging API
which fits in with your "quadrant" of APIs, but is clearly not part of
Proton as we know it today.
Secondly, as I previously stated, I think that for a new user
searching for information on AMQP libraries, the obvious list to look
for would be "amqp-libraries". The name proton is pretty meaningless
unless you already know it. (There is also perhaps some general value
for us in having the association between "qpid", "amqp" and "library"
become more obvious to search engines).
In any case I'm not sure that "stream of work" is the right way to
define mailing lists for the user community. Stream of work is a
concept that is meaningful to us, the committers, but a user will be
looking for functionality - which is a more natural definition of a
mailing list.
I would argue that the user list is the most obvious channel for a new
(potential) user to start asking questions, assuming they find their way
to Qpid in the first place. The web site content is even more important
here as many visitors will not bother to join a list an ask questions
that the site doesn't answer clearly.
The way that we choose to divide and sub-divide our work
would seem subject to change, what is part of the current "Proton"
stream may not always be so in the future.
I think this point gets to the heart of the matter.
The proton initiative brings a change in emphasis. Where previously our
focus was on AMQP compliant brokers and 'clients', proton is more
explicit in its aim in being embeddable by other brokers and clients[1].
As a community, while I think we are all supportive of that, we do not
all have complete clarity as to where that change in emphasis may lead
or what it means for users.
I think this lack of clarity, consensus and certainty is entangled with
the discussion on a separate list, but in fact exists whether or not
there is a new list and whatever that list is called.
I myself do not at present feel the need for a different list; my
preference would be for all discussions to happen on the user list[2].
However those closer to the work and the audience for it are clear there
is a need. As I understand it, the *immediate* need really *is* for
something focused on proton.
Yes, that might change. Yes, in the future there may be a different (or
additional) division. Right now however, those interested in the list
are aware of proton and want to discuss that specific component (in its
different flavours)[3]. For the audience necessitating the list, proton
seems the more obvious name.
Now, in addition to proton, AMQP 1.0 brings a renewed opportunity for,
and emphasis on, interoperability alongside the focus on features and
usability for the other Qpid components.
That may mean a list focused more on mapping to the protocol than on the
features of various Qpid components becomes useful. I don't think that
should be restricted to 'libraries' though. It would for example seem a
natural place to discuss extensions such as the filters registered under
the Apache domain, or inter-broker message transfer between different
brokers.
This may of course diverge from what you are proposing. I think that is
the problem with an 'amqp' (or 'amqp-libraries') list; its scope seems
blurry to me in a way that the scope of a proton list is not[4]. I'm
also less clear on the reason for separating this from the user list at
this point in time[5]. Again, the immediate need seems to be to discuss
proton.
Lists can always be renamed, migrated, merged or split apart as needs
dictate so we can adapt and evolve as we get a sense of what
conversations and discussions actually emerge. If creating a new list
I'd go with the name and scope that makes most sense here and now and
that to me is proton.
This thread has itself been very useful so far in prompting some
discussion and provoking though and whetever we decide I really hope we
keep that going.
--Gordon.
[1] It also brings a change in tactics, with more consideration being
placed on simplicity of swig wrapping in the design of the API than has
occurred previously.
[2] Which to some extent disqualifies me from adding my 2 cents, however...
[3] That proton is an amqp library, its target audience and distinctive
characteristics, its relation to other components within Qpid are all
points we need to communicate clearly but I don't think they need to
impact the name of the list.
[4] The scope of the proton components themselves may of course be
subject to discussion.
[5] I do see value in a distinct list for the AMQP community, which
would clearly be distinct from the Qpid users list. I myself would have
no issue with that being hosted by Qpid either. I see that as distinct
from a list on which the interoperability aspects of Qpid are discussed.
This is another example of the vaguer scope of an amqp list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
