On 14/03/2008, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 all looks reasonable to me; my comment would be that we should not make the scope too wide so that we can deliver a release that gives real benefits in a reasonable time line, e.g. build complete by June/July timeframe. > This is my view of what M3 looks like -- please add, rant, comment etc... > > - Land the 'bigmergebranch' between M2.1 and truck > - Tests, tests and more tests... > - Java client M2.1(0-8/9) interop + AMQP 0-10 > - Java broker merged (still talking 0-8/9?) > - Java broker (what else here??) > - C++ Broker 0-10 (TCP +IB) > - C++ Broker clustering module Is clustering something that is likely to be ready for M3? > - C++ Client 0-10 > - Ruby 0-10 Can someone give an update on the state of the Ruby module? Do we have anyone who has the bandwidth to work on it? Is anyone using the existing module? > - .NET 0-10 (see rabbit has done WCP 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...) I wonder if we want to continue working on our .NET client? I ask that as a genuine question rather than a statement of my opinion. I think it would be worthwhile understanding the limitations of a WCF approach - people will not be surprised given my support of "extended JMS" in Java to hear that a WCF (or extended WCF) implementation would to me *seem* the best way of supporting our .NET users. If the Rabbit client looks good then perhaps it makes sense to recommend our users adopt it. I know we have struggled to find the bandwidth to maintain our existing .NET client. > Other items: > - do we want to try have common events between brokers for mgmt? As discussed elsewhere I think this would be good although I would not think it a big issue if it was an M4 task. > - I expect that we will work to get the Java broker both 0-8/9 and 0-10 > for M4 > Let's refine the list on mail and then build a JIRA set for M3. In summary I think getting an M3 with the 0-10 protocol (backwards compatible to 0-9) would be my focus, keeping the scope of the released focussed on that. RG
