Group and then decides to commit a large change without it being discussed. Some of
what you have most likely has merit but it has to be reviewed so either submit it as a patch
or commit it to a branch off of head so that it can be reviewed for incorporation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hiram
Chirino
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: c/s JBossMQ status, was: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Scott,
Why does it matter? Nathan has not expressed interested in growing from
the current JMS implementation. I've been waiting for several months
for the new general purpose implementation to 'appear' and it has not.
There has been a skeleton since early Jun.
So it's time for me to start the engine again and make some needed improvements to the current JBossMQ implementation.
Where have you been the past year when Adrian and Scott have been fixing
this buggy MQ implementation? You failed to keep up the old stuff so please
don't make it sound like you're coming to the rescue.
I'm not so sure I want a total refactoring of the old JMS in the remoting
subsystem and the interceptor chains and such. The current JMS rewrite by
Nathan, Adrian, and Bela is going quite well and we will be replacing the
old system in the fall.
What I don't want is a CVS HEAD of the old JMS that doesn't look like the
3.2 series since it will be much harder to migrate 3.2 fixes to a CVS HEAD
that has been totally refactored. The old JMS needs to live a bit beyond
4.0's release and 4.0 will not be released until the late late fall, between
Thanksgiving and Christmas. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of users
will still depend on the old JMS for at least another year and we need some
to have fluidity between 3.2 and 4.0. We're already experiencing the pain
of an unnecessary rewrite of the Entity Container that is making it
difficult to merge fixes in 3.2 to 4.0. I don't want the same thing to
happen with a codebase that is going to be retired eventually anyways and
that needs to live in depracated mode for awhile.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
