On 16/01/07, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Standardising on some scheme of mapping JMS property values to AMQP field table values is required for interoperability between two different JMS adapters, but providing the standard values are used (and e.g. selectors aren't required) any compliant AMQP broker could be used between them without it caring about that mapping.
If you mean we could have done it using name mangling plus "long str" encoding then yes that is certainly true.
I know that at present there are not many implementations of AMQP to choose from so this is a somewhat theoretical and pedantic point but the principle of interoperability does seem to me to be an important one.
I agree that interop is a key principle and very important. However in the case of 0.8 which, when you get into the detail of features required for JMS or even just "useful functionality" and realise that 0.8 has many limitations, I think it's reasonable to break interop as long as we push the changes into AMQP.
I think it is important for us to be explicit about the impact of any such features on interoperability until the point that they can be standardised though, and try (as far as possible) to provide them in such a way that we augment rather than break the protocol and allow basic functionality to be used even where such extensions are not supported by the peer.
Yes I completely agree, and accept that we (mostly me) have not done a particularly good job of publicising the breaking changes. Hopefully now that AMQP is improving its process, it will be easier to follow through on these. RG
