On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 13:11 +0000, Robert Godfrey wrote: > Are you saying we will not support those parts of 0-9 which are also in 0-8 > (i.e. Basic, File and Stream)? > > As far as I understand it, those are still in the spec although marked as > likely to be replaced. If we are claiming spec compliance should we not > still support these classes for the moment? If spec compliance is not our > goal (i.e. we are really anticipating a later version of the spec where > these elements have been removed) we should be clear about that. On other > threads we have been quite reluctant to get "ahead of the spec". > > - Rob
IIRC, there are some difficulties in supporting both at the same time - issues that the protocol does not resolve. For example, framing: When a ProtocolInitiation is received by the broker, how does it know whether to use the new request/response framing or old MethodBody frame to send the Connection.Start method? However, your question on how we label an implementation that supports only 0-9 WIP is valid. It cannot be strictly 0-9 compliant, so perhaps we should call it 0-9-WIP compliant instead. Kim
