James Strachan wrote:
On 10/26/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree, sharing code is ideal. The qpid proposal included reusable
libraries as an objective and this seems sensible in the effort to
promote AMQP and interoperability.
Right now the feedback seems to be that the code is mainly useful as
'seed' code for a fork. Forks are clearly not ideal as they dilute the
collective effort, but sometimes they may be inevitable due to different
long term needs/aims or lack of short term resources to make more minor
adjustments to satisfy all needs.
Note I wouldn't call this a fork; its just an early experimental spike
to see how much of the qpid code needs to be changed to be usable in
ActiveMQ.
I stand corrected.
The intention is to refactor and reuse as much qpid code as
possible (assuming the qpid project accepts those refactors) and work
with the qpid community to ensure we have one codebase for AMQP
framing where possible. A fork is only a last resort when you can't
work with a community after trying all other possibilities.
Now we have the spike working, we can step back and compare the two
sets of qpid framing code to see if we can refactor things into one
library we can share (hopefully) - or at least find the common bits we
can share; maybe one common core with 2 optional parts (for MINA v
anything else).
Yes, I am in full agreement with that approach.
