On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps even that is over ambitious for M3 though, depending on the dates > > chosen. I guess my question is whether there is benefit in setting those > > dates such that we can improve this matrix for M3 or whether an earlier > M3 > > is warranted. > > Personally, I'd like to get M3 out soonish, given it's our first > release from trunk for a while (cough) and I'm concerned about stuff > rotting there (cough, cough). I could be convinced updating the > clients would be worth it if it could be done quickly(ish), but I'd > tend towards getting M3 out and everybody working together on trunk > before hacking 0-10 into .Net. I don't know enough about the Ruby > client to have a feel for how quickly that could be done, IIRC it's > quite thin and close to the spec so might be substantially easier. > Aidan if we do this, then again we will end up with the Java broker and .NET client lagging behind. This will add further to the confusion. I think from an end user POV what is important is that when we make the 0-10 release all clients and brokers work with each other. IMO even if it takes time, we should aim to do this for M3. Once we achive this baseline then we can do more frequent releases to cover bug fixes/enhancements etc. The key value proposition of AMQP is interoperability and if we don't aim for that (at least with our own releases) we are not making full use of AMQP. Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
