On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 certainly wasn't intending to draw such a conclusion, and I apologize for any sloppy wording that may have implied this. I'm merely stating my own beliefs and conjectures about the future. I've conceded that you can do what you like with the lists and I won't stand in the way, however I can't make myself believe that it is the right choice, and if only for my own cathartic benefit I feel the need to document the minority view. Ultimately the dissent over this issue is more damaging than simply moving forward and making progress. I've pushed it as much as I have in the past because I do have very strong beliefs surrounding it and I'm sorry if trying to explain my perspective has wasted more time. --Rafael
