2008/10/8 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > >> Do we want to have the major version as zero? That implies to me that >> qpid is immature, which I would argue is not the case. The codebase > > > It implies that the API is immature, which it is. The only stable API that > I'm aware of Qpid having is the JMS one. Everything else has a tendancy to > change / be completely rewritten between versions. > > I don't think that we're in a position to be offering source compatible APIs > at this point or in the immediate future either. AMQP 1.0 is likely to cause > some churn, particularly with the lower level clients like Ruby. > > >> has been evolving over the space of several years now and there are >> many production deployments of several components (e.g. I personally >> know about significant usage of the java broker and client). >> > > Being production ready is different from being API-stable and maintaining > source compatibility between releases. The API compatibility is the > objective information encoded in APR-style [1] version numbers. > > I know in some worlds having a large version number is taken to imply a > certain level of maturity. That view is as often as not innaccurate. It is > always highly subjective. > > - Aidan > > [1] http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html
The Apache guidelines you linked to make a clear case for major version numbers being tied to API compatibility. I think the real issue for me is that not all clients/brokers are currently speaking the same version of AMQP; so we have API inconsistency within the project. If everything were speaking AMQP0-10 then I would be fine in moving to a 1.x. If the version of AMQP then moves forward, and the derived APIs change then, as per the Apache guidelines linked to by Aidan, we can change the major version number. I do agree with Robert that we have enough maturity and existing users to justify a non 0.x version numbering. Skipping from 0.3 to 1.4 without ever having a 1.0 would seem somewhat odd to me though :-) -- Rob
