OK - in general I think the biggest issue is that a lot of the discussion of such things goes on "off list" (e.g. I wasn't aware of the Ruby generator for C++ until a good deal of time after its existance). We should, I think, decide whether we aim to have a single generating mechanism across languages, and if so, what are the requirements of such a beast. Further I think at some point we need to discuss exactly what commonality we expect between the different modules of qpid. Currently I get the feeling that the brokers and clients of each language are diverging in their designs and APIs...
-- Rob On 25/09/2007, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alan Conway wrote: > > The motivation was not "not invented here", it was "not suitable to the > > task at hand". Again can I stress that *all of the people actually > > affected* by the ruby generator are happy with it. Its not clear to me > > why people who are not affected by it are so upset. > > As one of those affected, I certainly agree that the ruby generation has > been a big boost to productivity in the conversion to 0-10. >
