I think this is productive discussion! Just to be clear, I'm not bent out of shape about any of this. I want more and more people to get engaged solving it.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Alan Conway <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 I like this very much. But when I was looking at this I took a pragmatic turn: extricating the common dependencies is hard, so why not just leave the cpp and java trees as is (albeit moved up to the level of proton)? They're already quite independent, and there is a lot of "integration" invested in them as they are. So I thought, we could keep them as they are, maintain them, and refocus our energy on things like a new independent JMS client (on proton) and AMQP routers (on proton). On balance, it seems like the neatest way to make a break, balancing our desire to not break stuff with our desire to press forward with a new model. I understand the argument in favor of zero disruption. To me that's about timing; it's something you do only rarely. But I happen to think this year is the right time to set down a new pattern and come out with a splash. Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
