Robert Greig wrote:
On 29/08/2007, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My view would be that we should interoperate with any implementation
over the portion we both support. Transactions for example are optional,
the number of channels per connection negotiable. Any limitations there
should not prevent more basic interoperability.
This is true but I think certain things make interoperability only
theoretical for most users, transactions being a good example. We
don't really have a way of determining which set of "optional"
features a given broker supports (I don't think?) so what do we do -
just fail when people try to use those features?
Yes, I think this is an important point. We need to establish a standard
mechanism for feature negotiation. Its also important that users don't
lose faith in interoperability due to implementation of different sets
of optional features by different brokers.
Having said that there should be no issue if people want to use very
basic functionality. We should maybe have a table on our website
indicating which features are known to work (due to "deliberate"
limitations rather than bugs!).
Yes, good idea! Rabbit have a very nice page where they list features
supported and tests passed.
