On 07/10/2013 01:45 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:01:02PM -0400, Ted Ross wrote:
I would think that downstream repos would package one or the other
but not both. It would be nice if downstream, it was called
qpid.messagingregardless of the implementation used.
Agreed.
I disagree. I can see cases where it would be beneficial to have both
installed. E.g. you have existing applications that you don't want to
switch (if it ain't broke etc), but you also want to try 1.0 (or just
the c++ impl) for some new use cases.
I think it ought to be a goal to have the Swigged bindings be a
drop-in replacement for the pure Python bindings. The users shouldn't care
which implementation they use.
Some won't, some will.
Though the APIs are getting very close, there are still - and I believe
will always be - behavioural differences. Even apart from those, we have
had users using eventlet and monkey-patching and they are going to care
which implementation they have.
[...]
WRT the name space, I'm still wanting to keep it as qpid.messaging
since, in the long run, that would require developers to not change
their imports and usage.
I want to keep qpid.messaging for the existing python client, have the
swigged implementation available through another name and optionally
have a third that simply tries one and falls back on the other based on
what is available (for those use cases that want to be able to switch
between the two).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
