On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com>wrote:
> > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for Proton
> > across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> >
> >                                   C  Python  Ruby  Perl
> > Mailbox (Raw API)                [ ] [X]     [X]   [ ]
> > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X]     [X]   [X]
> > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger)     [X] [ ]     [ ]   [ ]
> >
> We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.

Yeah, sorry to forget that.

> What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack of
> > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific example of
> > stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show very simple
> > point-to-point messaging.
> >
> > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing that comes
> > to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> >
> > Ideas?
> >
> A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really be
> messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth having non
> messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as those kinds
> of examples are much more involved and maintaining duplicate examples
> involves some significant maintenance effort. I would rather see a very
> well maintained/structured C example for the non messenger stuff. In fact
> I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't bother exposing the non messenger APIs
> through the bindings at all, with the exception of python for testing
> purposes of course. To be clear I'm not opposed to exposing them, I just
> don't think there is any demand at this point and I think it just creates
> unnecessary work until there is.
> In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 if we do
> something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a basic, well
> thought out, but simple messenger based example geared towards getting
> people started, and strive to keep that consistent and up to date across
> all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to one language only (at least at
> first), choosing whichever seems most appropriate for that particular deep
> scenario.

If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the bindings,
then one language doing a deep example and others doing more general
examples should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to
understand for someone not familiar with it to follow.

Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.

Attachment: pgpNjSPMiZ3Yn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to