2008/6/18 Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My view is that I believe the C++ guys have done a very good job of getting > that broker to be stable and at 0-10, and we also have got the C++, Java and > Python clients into a state where they interoperate with that broker. i > believe that certain organisations even believe that the code on trunk is > good enough to make a comercial release out of it ;-) > > I think that it will be at least another 3 months before we have the Java > broker up to the same point. > > Therefore I am thinking that a 0-10 based release with the components that > are at that level now makes a lot of sense.
OK, so are we saying that we should release M3 as a "0-10 release", do it soon, and only include those components that are close to supporting 0-10 today (i.e. mostly done, just getting bug fixes etc). This means C++ broker and client, java client and python client. M3 would specifically exclude the ruby client, .NET client and java broker? That sounds sensible to me - I completely agree that it would be great to get a 0-10 release of AMQP out there. I do think that this will require careful documentation to avoid confusing users (and potential users). Is it realistic to say that M3 C++ broker should include only solaris and linux support, or do people think that the Windows port is close to being ready? Having a Windows binary would be terrific but I also buy the release often approach and maybe an M3.1 done soon after M3 would be an option. RG
