Excuse the top post...
These would be my two comments,
First, as we develop we will find things that need to be fixed or worked
in the spec. That is good and from my side I have no issue the qpid
project working them out. However when we do that we should raise it to
the list and make sure we take them back to working group. Once the
issue has been worked at the working group we should then revisit and
update as to how it is modified in the spec. I expect that we will have
back and forward for a few months yet as the spec develops. Maybe we can
create a separate section in JIRA for this so that we don't lose them.
Second item is: we need to make sure that we maintain interop between
all the impl within the qpid project.
On the item of spec compliance, I don't think we have claimed that yet.
I am not even convinced that M1 is compliant with 0.8. As we are
developing the project while the spec is being developed I would expect
that we would goal to be compliant on a future release once the codebase
and spec has stabilized. We might be able to do that for 0-10 if most of
the open items (for example JMS, type system, ...) get resolved and in.
So yes, I agree with the comment made in this thread, and to Gordon's
point we need a better way to keep track of these items.
Carl.
Gordon Sim wrote:
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?
That would have been my understanding as well.
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.
I agree.
On other
threads we have been quite reluctant to get "ahead of the spec".
Thats really just been me, and I accept I am being rather pedantic! To
again repeat what I tried previously to say, I am not at all against
adding to the protocol. I would however (where feasible) much prefer
that we didn't actually break it for simple scenarios. My view should
be taken purely as the opinion of one person though!
