On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I certainly agree with the timeboxing approach in general. My one concern is > the interoperability or lack thereof between the components of a release. A > plan for achieving that in some form would be good to reach, even if it goes > out past M3. AFAIK, the current supportable interop matrix looks like this: Client/Broker Java(0-8,0-9) C++ (0-10) C++ (0-10) X Y Ruby (0-10) X Y Java (0-8,0-9,0-10) Y Y .Net (0-8) Y X Python (0-10) X Y (Gmail may have knackered my tabling here, couldn't figure out how to get a fixed font) with a caveat that the Java client on trunk is a little busted regarding protocol negotiation, but that should be quite fixable for M3. I would also like to get more coverage with that, making the .Net and the Java broker speak 0-10 would seem the obvious next steps and would fill both columns with Y. That's a sizeable chunk of work, particularly for the broker though, and I'd be surprised if it could be fitted into the sort of M3 timeframe we're talking about. - Aidan -- aim/y!:aidans42 g:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/ "We belong to nobody and nobody belongs to us. We don't even belong to each other."
