[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-171?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ken Giusti resolved PROTON-171.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 0.3
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=14300
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:49:57PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > Compared to the other bindings, it seems inconsistent for the former to
> > > state its Perl-ness in its name, and for the latter to state its
> > Swig-ness.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Negative on Perl.
> >
> > The raw Perl
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:56:54PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > Not difficult, no. We just have to pass it through a similar filter as
> > would be done when using autoconf. For development purposes the version
> > doesn't matter, just when we're creating those artifacts.
> >
> > So we could
Hi Rob,
I believe we're thinking along the same lines.
The ServiceLoader approach does indeed only affect which implementation you
get by default. We will also allow the client to explicitly choose their
implementation if they wish, and there will be no problem with both
implmentations being use
I've not looked at the branch lately (only just back from vacation), but I
would very much hope that there would be nothing preventing having both the
JNI and native-Java libraries in the classpath, and allowing for explicit
creation of the desired implementation of Connection / Messenger / whateve