> 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++).
Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone currently working on creating C++ examples? Thanks, Mary -----Original Message----- From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Language example apps... 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 <[email protected]>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. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
