Brian McCallister wrote:
On Oct 26, 2006, at 3:51 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
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.
Huh? Is this referring to Hiram's patches which work to decouple the
code to make it more easily reusable?
Yes, though it was not intended in any derogatory sense. Due to the
nature of the code the changes required to integrate into active mq
resulted in two incompatible branches (e.g. we can't use the
Data-Input/Output interfaces, you can't use the mina ByteBuffer).
James has already clarified that it should be viewed more as an
experimental branch to highlight the areas that would need to be
refactored to allow cleaner reuse.
I would strongly advise against preferring less reusable code in order
to make it more difficult for people to reuse the code and "guard"
against forks. Forks are usually social phenomena, not technical.
I'm not sure what part of my mail gave you the impression that that was
my aim, but can assure you that it is not. To repeat what I tried to say
earlier: I recognise that its valuable to make as many parts of the qpid
codebase reusable from other projects as possible and I accept that is
not the case now.
