On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:31 +0100, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 17:12, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I have directly experienced some of the opportunity cost that Justin speaks
> > of. I once observed someone (a director level decision maker) being very
> > surprised to be informed that qpid is actually *two* brokers. He had ruled
> > it out as an option entirely until he found out that we actualy have a Java
> > broker that speaks multiple versions of the protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - this is the sort of thing that I think we need to make clear from the
> starting point of the website.  What components we have, what the can be
> used for, and what components we are looking to build.
> 
> I think the general idea of having other libraries and services at the same
> level as proton makes a lot of sense... however given the way that the Java
> tree is constructed (I can't speak for the C++), it'd be a little hard to
> arrange right now and having a top level entry corresponding to "java"
> probably wouldn't help with the silo-ing which you describe below (moreover
> it really doesn't make much sense from a user perspective either).
> 
> So a directory structure which had top level entries something more like
> 
> ** proton
> ** Java broker
> ** C++ broker
> ** JMS client
> ** Messaging API client(s)
> ** AMQP proxy
> ** AMQP router
> ** Management Console

If we do the split that way (which seems reasonable) then we have to
think about where to put libraries used by more than one component. e.g.
for C++ we have libqpidcommon and libqpidtypes that are used by both the
broker and the C++ messaging API.

I can think of 2 ways to do this: 
1. create extra top level directories for the common stuff.
2. Put common stuff in the "lighter" component and have the "heavier"
component depend on it (e.g. C++ broker depends on C++ messaging API).
3. duplicate the code

I'm happy with 1 or 2, not 3.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to