On 14/03/2008, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Based on some conversations I want to get a thread going on the > following.... > > It looks like M2.1 is landing nicely, so it might be time to start a > thread on M3 scope. M3 work > has begun as we all know but I think we need to block up what M3 will > looks like, JIRA it and do the > scope closing for it. > > This is my view of what M3 looks like -- please add, rant, comment etc... > > - Land the 'bigmergebranch' between M2.1 and truck
+1 > - Tests, tests and more tests... + [image: \aleph_0] > - Java client M2.1(0-8/9) interop + AMQP 0-10 > - Java broker merged (still talking 0-8/9?) +1 > - Java broker (what else here??) I have been working on new Finite State Automata versions of the Topic and Headers exchanges which I can probably finish off in this time. These will give matching times proportional to the length of the routing key / headers arguments; independent of the number of bindings to the exchange. > - C++ Broker 0-10 (TCP +IB) > - C++ Broker clustering module > - C++ Client 0-10 > - Ruby 0-10 > - .NET 0-10 (see rabbit has done WCF layer, do we want pick anything up > from that as it is ASL, do we also want to support 0-8/9 from the same > client, updating our client...) > All sounds sensible > Other items: > - do we want to try have common events between brokers for mgmt? > - I expect that we will work to get the Java broker both 0-8/9 and 0-10 > for M4 > - Lot of DTX & JTA work has been done for Java how to review/ merge etc > this? > I would hold off on the DTX stuff until M4. We need to significantly refactor the Java Broker (another thing I am doing in the background and will look to commit after we have M3 out of the way) and also put in place flow-to-disk. This, plus the 0-10 work (and getting the broker to being able to transparently convert messages between 0-8/0-9/0-10) will probably affect how the DTX stuff will need to be added. > > Let's refine the list on mail and then build a JIRA set for M3. Yes - we should start a JIRA set for M3 and for M4 > Also, do we expect we will need to do a M2.2 - if so what is it? > I am not anticipating an M2.2; or any other releases off the M2 branch other than bug fixes. Anyone else? -- Rob
