On 01/21/2013 07:39 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Calling it an analogy is not really being fair. Getting closer to the level of generality I've described has been one of if not the primary design goal behind AMQP 1.0 since it's inception, and the exact parallel I've described has motivated many of its fundamental design choices. You can certainly argue that the design is flawed and it is impossible to implement the architecture in such a decoupled manner, however it's not realistic to simply discount it as a flawed analogy.
I'm not arguing that the design is flawed. I'm arguing that comparing the relationship of the TCP stack to the Apache Web server as being the same as that of Proton to a specific broker implementation and drawing from that the conclusion that the communities around them are thus necessarily as distinct is unconvincing to me.
[...]
I agree 100% with you that we need more communication about architecture and how components fit together and that this communication needs to reach a lot of people. Where I disagree with you is that altering the mailing lists will achieve a significant measure of that goal.
I don't believe I ever argued that it would.
This communication really needs to be captured in a more permanent form that can be sent (ideally via a small easy to remember URL) to lots of mailing lists, even (perhaps especially) ones outside of qpid.
Sounds great! Even when that exists though, I still believe a single list on which the community can discuss diverse AMQP and Qpid related topics is a good thing.
