? I don't think anyone is suggesting it wouldn't be appropriate. Were my semantics such that I added some confusion?
William ----- Original Message ----- > Why would examples in every normative language not be appropriate? > Synchronization may be an issue, but wouldn't examples be easily > synchronized with language-specific API updates? > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM, William Henry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Mary, > > > > It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work > > because > > the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton C API > > under > > the covers. > > > > That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure > > this is > > true. > > > > Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples > > (?). > > i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton enabled > > C++ API? > > Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton addressing with the > > more > > complex previous addressing that allowed us to build exchanges and > > queues? > > > > William > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Joseph B. Ottinger > http://enigmastation.com > *Memento mori.* >
