Sorry, not sure I understand the issue, the AMQP spec license is a
'free' license.
On 04/30/2013 10:09 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Dear QPID maintainers,
Jonas Smedegaard just sent a bug report on the Debian bug tracker,
because he believes that the qpid-python package in Debian is
When I read the BZ, it looked like they had issues with the stripped
down BSD - per the comment from the Rabbit stuf. I may have miss read.
Carl.
On 04/30/2013 12:14 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Hi,
I believe the XML files are available only under the AMQP license, so this
would indeed seem
Fraser Adams has been nominated for committer for qpid and has accepted.
Please join me in welcoming him to the project!.
Fraser, we are watching to see your first commit!
kind regards
Carl.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 01/16/2013 09:51 AM, Faye Williams wrote:
Hi there,
I have tried multiple times, but unsubscribing (both via the link in the
email and the same email address on the site) fails to unsubscribe me.
How can I get off of the users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org mailing list??
Thanks.
Faye.
I like the single list idea with subjects.
Carl.
On 01/18/2013 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
I believe that we have too many mailing lists and that we are missing
out on valuable collaboration and transparency as a result.
Too often in the past topics have been discussed on the dev list
Phil was nominated for committer and has accepted. Please join me in
welcoming him.
Phil, you will need to recheck out using https, and if you have any
issues let me know.
more info on committership can be found here:
http://www.apache.org/dev/new-committers-guide.html
Welcome
Carl.
On 09/21/2012 11:14 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7209/
---
Review request for qpid, Kenneth
I'm Glad to announce that Darryl Pierce and Oleksandr Rudyy where
nominated and have accepted committership for the qpid project. Please
join me in welcoming them as committers to Qpid.
Darryl and Oleksandr, if you have any issues in being able to commit,
please let me know. Note that you need
On 07/20/2012 04:03 PM, William Henry wrote:
So to the folks that make decisions on this list:
Is AMQP more important than legacy Qpid?
Is proton about AMQP 1.0 or about legacy Qpid?
Nice summary,
a.) I would say Proton is about making it easy for anyone to use AMQP 1.0
b.) In so doing it
On 07/18/2012 02:05 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/18/2012 05:40 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
So while the Proton mission is in many ways compatible with the
original Qpid charter, the de facto Qpid mission of today is really
quite different from Proton's.
I tend to disagree.
In my mind, the
On 07/18/2012 08:13 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 19:05 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/18/2012 05:40 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
So while the Proton mission is in many ways compatible with the
original Qpid charter, the de facto Qpid mission of today is really
quite
+1
Carl.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
Th PMC has nominated Weston for committer, which he has accepted. All
accounts have been created and Weston now has commit access.
Welcome aboard,
Let us know if you need any help getting your first commit in. Note that
you need to now re-checkout using 'https' and login to be able to commit.
ManagementDirectExchange::ManagementDirectExchange(const std::string _name,
bool
_durable,
const FieldTable _args,
Manageable*
Seems to make sense as it is clearly a different use case for the Java
client
Carl.
On 12/20/2011 08:08 AM, Weston M. Price wrote:
With the completion of
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3044
there is a new JCA component (actually a sub-component of Java). I was
wondering if
On 12/06/2011 10:56 AM, acon...@apache.org wrote:
NOTE 1: If you are using an ACL, the cluster-username must be allowed to
publish to the qpid.cluster-credentials exchange. E.g. in your ACL file:
acl allow foo@QPID publish exchange name=qpid.cluster-credentials
Alan,
Why require this in ACL,
The ASF board is expanding the use of GIT, in the trial group for the
ASF. Do we want to take the plunge?
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact:
it is a lot easier to merge features, and work with others on changes.
Carl.
On 11/28/2011 04:19 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
What benefit is there to using git?
-Original Message-
From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:cctriel...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 3:38 PM
To: dev
On 10/30/2011 02:23 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I cant be sure as IANAL, but I believe publishing the bdbstore module
would be ok. We still wouldnt be distributing the dependency
ourselves, none of our other artifacts would depend on it so its still
entirely optional, and there are certainly
On 10/26/2011 06:28 PM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
Ah, thanks Carl.
I just skimmed over that bit of the documentation [1] when I was reading up
on clustering, but it's obvious now ;) I'll give it a try - it looks like I
only need the replication plugin libraries, not corosync or anything.
Use queue state replication and client failover via the address or
failover exchange.
Carl.
On 10/26/2011 03:26 PM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
Hi.
I'm trying to set up clustering with the C++ broker, but I'd like to do this
on Amazon EC2 or similar cloud hosts. The problem with this is that I
Keith has been nominated and voted onto Qpid as a committer and has
accepted. Please welcome him
regards
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact:
On 08/16/2011 01:23 PM, Kim van der Riet wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 10:35 -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Note that some tests fail on F15 if I build the store also. Is this
going to be resolved on the store before the store rev tagged for 0.12?
Carl.
This should have been fixed on r.4468
Ken,
QMFv2 solves this issue, can't we port the tools to QMFv2?
Carl.
On 07/21/2011 01:47 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
Alan's correct - I *believe* (not looking at the code in the debugger ATM)
that qpid-config is most likely downloading the broker schema data on
connection, and perhaps parsing
On 07/13/2011 08:20 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Going once, going twice... I'll delete these directories tomorrow AM
unless I hear objections. I'll do so on both the 0.12 release branch
and on trunk.
My only suggestion would be to delete everything in the directories
except the top level directory
On 07/13/2011 11:53 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/13/2011 04:39 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 07/13/2011 08:20 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Going once, going twice... I'll delete these directories tomorrow AM
unless I hear objections. I'll do so on both the 0.12 release branch
and on trunk.
My only
On 07/13/2011 01:59 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
How about a top level readme with a where everything is.
Yes, a top level README is reasonable.
ack, this is a better than my first idea.
I think this is particularly important given the swig bindings as they
are not that easy to find unless you
On 06/30/2011 12:50 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 06/30/2011 05:36 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 06/30/2011 12:21 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
1) Is it possible for a client to recover the --default-queue-limit
for a
broker?
No, I'm afraid not.
This should however be trivial to add and quite useful
Justin has been voted on as committed and he accepted. Please join me in
welcoming Justin.
we're waiting for your first commit...
regards and welcome,
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
In working a patch to add ownership to the broker model for ACL, I see
that bindings are the only object we don't use encode and decode. This
meant that the first version of my patch required a change to the
encode/decode of binding in the store code. This is a break in
abstraction, where the
On 05/18/2011 12:41 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/18/2011 04:54 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
In working a patch to add ownership to the broker model for ACL, I see
that bindings are the only object we don't use encode and decode. This
meant that the first version of my patch required a change
On 05/18/2011 03:00 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/18/2011 06:33 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 05/18/2011 12:41 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 05/18/2011 04:54 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
In working a patch to add ownership to the broker model for ACL, I see
that bindings are the only object we don't use
In Exchnage.cpp, we have an ACL check for passive...
why it it there, as all exchange create calls come through declare which
also has the ACL check, any ideas before I delete this code?
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging
On 05/03/2011 02:37 PM, Mike Pomraning wrote:
This message[0] seems to confirm that persistent ring queues break hard when
they reach capacity, rather than wrapping gracefully. Further, that
breaking point is rather difficult to compute in advance.
Is there a practicable workaround for those
no, let's not start errata. that is a massive amount of energy. The
energy would
be better spend getting 0.12 out with the fixes included and providing a
release note.
Carl.
On 04/19/2011 11:37 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Since we are striving hard to get into a habit of doing quarterly
Rajith, that would be great
On 04/13/2011 09:40 AM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
Since Rafi and/or Rob was going to talk about the 1.0 work and future
plans for the project, I was hoping to submit a proposal for the
training track.
We does seem to have a reasonable user base so there might be an
On 04/01/2011 10:27 AM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
+1, just delete them.
Considering what everyone else has said, I'd vote to just delete them.
+1
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
On 03/31/2011 01:36 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
(a)
[ ] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 SHOULD be removed from the 0.10 release
[ ] -1, qpid-dotnet-0-8-0.10 should NOT be removed from the 0.10
release (please list changes it includes to support this vote)
(b)
[ ] +1, qpid-dotnet-0-10-0.10 SHOULD be
It would also be good to get agreement on the implementation strategy.
Personally what I believe we would want to do is provide native
Java, Python and C++ 1.0 transports.
Additionally I would like to see that we can use either the native or C++
transports in the Java and Python clients, and
Don't know if it is symantics but may not 100 agree, let's try pull that
apart.
I think what we're saying is that first we build the transport, and on top
of that we build a a library that gives the messaging API, and on top of
that we build JMS, possible WCF, and whatever other
On 03/25/2011 10:49 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 25 March 2011 14:57, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
Don't know if it is symantics but may not 100 agree, let's try pull that
apart.
I think what we're saying is that first we build the transport, and on top
of that we build a
That seems like an omission to me.
Carl.
On 03/16/2011 04:26 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
While trying to answer a question on the user list, I was trying to test the
behaviour around rejecting a message.
It seems the 'reject' and 'release' methods are missing from the session
class in the
On 03/12/2011 12:18 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
This test (one of the C++ unit tests) is failing on trunk:
../../../qpid/cpp/src/tests/ExchangeTest.cpp(282): error in
testIVEOption: check 1u == queue3-getMessageCount() failed [1 != 0]
Failure appears to be introduced by r1080411:
Author: Carl C.
On 03/11/2011 06:14 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
..the iterator may be invalidated by a subsequent update to the map
once the lock is released. Testing against bindingCache.end() outside
the lock is also not safe.
I don't believe so, as it holds a smart pointer, the smart pointer will
hold the
On 03/14/2011 09:53 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/14/2011 01:46 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 03/12/2011 12:18 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
This test (one of the C++ unit tests) is failing on trunk:
../../../qpid/cpp/src/tests/ExchangeTest.cpp(282): error in
testIVEOption: check 1u == queue3
On 03/14/2011 10:07 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Its the iterator that is the issue, not the smart pointer that it
points to. You test (it == bindingCache.end()) outside the lock and
that is not safe.
FYI -- .end() function is independent of the validity of the iterator.
'it' will either == the
On 03/12/2011 12:18 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
This test (one of the C++ unit tests) is failing on trunk:
../../../qpid/cpp/src/tests/ExchangeTest.cpp(282): error in
testIVEOption: check 1u == queue3-getMessageCount() failed [1 != 0]
Failure appears to be introduced by r1080411:
Author: Carl C.
On 03/14/2011 01:12 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
In general end() is not thread safe or constant. If you are using
plain pointers as iterators over a C array, then end() is a pointer to
one place after the last element of the array and changes if the array
size changes. Probably many std
Reporter: Carl Trieloff
Priority: Minor
The follow patch introduces a cache for route matches allow the producer to
return to IO faster allowing for 50% perf gain for the topic exchange.
The cache is cleared on the addition or removal of a binding forcing cache
re-population
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3138?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Carl Trieloff resolved QPID-3138.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Assignee: Carl Trieloff
Committed revision 1080411.
Perf improvement
Is there interest in having this committed to 0-10, it is low risk,
large perf gain for topic exchange.
On 03/10/2011 05:53 PM, Carl Trieloff (JIRA) wrote:
Perf improvement for topic exchange
---
Key: QPID-3138
URL: https
Original Message
Subject: PMCs: the ApacheCon CFP is out. Help increase your Project's
exposure!
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:56:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Sally Khudairi s...@apache.org
Reply-To: s...@apache.org
To: p...@apache.org, priv...@incubator.apache.org
CC:
Though some discussions I have come to believe that we can do better
marketing our project. Simple things go a long way so in this regard
I would like to suggest that when we release 0.10 we make an effort
to talk about it.
This can be from twitter to a post on your favourite tech forum about
On 02/21/2011 07:01 AM, Gordon Sim (JIRA) wrote:
Note: this implementation does not force all consumers to be browsers (may
revisit that decision at some point).
This comment raises a question for me. Are you assuming messages are
just replaced by key but never dequeued?
I know of many
On 02/21/2011 09:50 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 02/21/2011 02:40 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 02/21/2011 07:01 AM, Gordon Sim (JIRA) wrote:
Note: this implementation does not force all consumers to be browsers
(may revisit that decision at some point).
This comment raises a question for me
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3067?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12996435#comment-12996435
]
Carl Trieloff commented on QPID-3067:
-
When you do this, can you also bring william's
On 02/16/2011 04:10 PM, Paul Colby wrote:
As it is, I expect it to be complete sometime next week (though I'm
not sure how much is involved in implementing automake support (?).
go for it, let's try get it in.
BTW, what happened to a 0.9 release? Are odd point releases being
used for
log into your apache account, and svn up the relative w1 dir and then
they should sync on the hour.
Carl.
On 02/10/2011 09:12 AM, Alan Conway wrote:
I just checked the web site and the C++ API docs are the qpid
developer version showing broker internals, not the user version. I
verified
Working on a bunch of stuff, I found that we now have the ability to set
a trace on the
queue based on settings
config of queue (queue.cpp)
traceId = _settings.getAsString(qpidTraceIdentity);
However I don't see it on qpid-config... any reason for this?
Carl.
On 02/10/2011 10:05 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 02/10/2011 02:51 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Working on a bunch of stuff, I found that we now have the ability to set
a trace on the
queue based on settings
config of queue (queue.cpp)
traceId = _settings.getAsString(qpidTraceIdentity);
However I
On 01/27/2011 06:25 AM, Gordon Sim (JIRA) wrote:
I'd be cautious with committing to a particular for of session-listener. While
you may be right that it will always be language specific, I think it needs
some thought and discussion on the form it should take. I don't think it is an
intrinsic
I've spoken a bit with Rafi and Gordon and though it good to post the
following.
I'm commonly needing to create a single receiver and then alter the
subscription (filters) on that receiver. I.e. add to the receiver and
remove from it.
In 0-10 this would be done with bind and unbind. It is
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3000?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12982659#action_12982659
]
Carl Trieloff commented on QPID-3000:
-
Are you going to use the session timeout
On 01/17/2011 08:14 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
In addition to the basic behaviour the solution will also provide a
mechanism to customise the message delivery to avoid the situation
where high priority messages completely starve out lower priority
messages. This will be done by allowing the queue to
On 01/17/2011 08:14 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Recognise a timeout value that can be passed in the arguments to
queue-declare. Instead of immediately deleting the queue when eligible
for doing so, set up a timed task to try to delete after the
configured delay. If the queue becomes used within that
On 01/17/2011 09:57 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 01/17/2011 08:14 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Recognise a timeout value that can be passed in the arguments to
queue-declare. Instead of immediately deleting the queue when eligible
for doing so, set up a timed task to try to delete after the
configured
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3000?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12982664#action_12982664
]
Carl Trieloff commented on QPID-3000:
-
Why not starting to use it... what is the down
On 01/17/2011 10:01 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
We don't support session resume so session timeout at the AMQP 0-10
level is not used at present. I prefer to keep this entirely separate
rather than mix it in with that. It is certainly possible to have a
session level timeout value in clients and use
On 01/17/2011 10:29 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
I don't think it adds complexity. It is also entirely optional.
Repeating the point above, the fact that it is set per queue can in
many cases be hidden from the application (e.g. we can have a
connection level option controlling timeout for reliable
For connection open, any objections to adding a constructor that places
the contents of the URL, in parts in the options map.
QPID_MESSAGING_EXTERN Connection(const std::string url, const
qpid::types::Variant::Map options = qpid::types::Variant::Map());
i.e adding one without the 'url'
Robbie,
Make sure to also send a mail to announce list, so that all of Apache knows
that the release has been made. Make sure the download page has been updated
and synced before you send the mail.
Thanks for driving the release
Carl.
On 12/06/2010 04:52 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/04/2010
:-) ignore the mail I just sent...
On 12/05/2010 07:17 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here is a draft for the 0.8 release announcement to our users list and
annou...@.
I would like to send the final email out within 36hrs, so please chip in
with any feedback you might have before
Is the failover for a cluster or just to brokers.
For a cluster, the heartbeat etc need to be setup and the rest is automatic
from the failover exchange.
If just two brokers, then the connection URL needs to be used.
Carl.
On 11/21/2010 03:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
Anyone?
Tim
On Thu, Nov
On 11/10/2010 01:03 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
In my mind the ideal is that when creating a dist, the full source for
all possible modules are included regardless of whether the deps for
those are available at the time of creation. That way you ease the
burden of getting the system setup for
On 11/10/2010 11:20 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
build it on a platform with deps install. that seems less error prone.
Actually I think that ensuring the distribution is 'complete'
regardless of the existence of dependencies on the platform it was
built is less error prone.
The question in my
Of interest: http://github.com/willb/spqr
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
On 10/22/2010 02:04 PM, Ted Ross wrote:
I'm trying to fix both bugs. In the broker, should it reject the
string value when it expects an integer, or should it do the conversion?
Just my opinion: The broker should use isdigit() or equivalent to
determine if it can convert and if so, convert.
My employer will be sponsoring a Qpid meetup at ApacheCon ATL this year.
Come
meet, spread the word and learn about the project. It is the typical
free beer
event that Apache puts on!.
Scheduled for Wednesday night (3rd) at 8PM.
Carl.
Can we note this one the website, and then Apache will link it from the
ApacheCon
home page.
Jonathan, is that something you can do?
Carl.
On 10/20/2010 01:14 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
My employer will be sponsoring a Qpid meetup at ApacheCon ATL this
year. Come
meet, spread the word
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-2905?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12920517#action_12920517
]
Carl Trieloff commented on QPID-2905:
-
Note I did not look at patch for content, (code
The PMC had voted and nominated Chuck to committership, he has accepted and
accounts etc have been setup. Welcome, and looking forward to your first
commit.
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
Those are the semantics of the ring queue in the C++ broker, I don't
believe Java broker supports that yet,
but please correct me if I'm wrong
Carl.
On 08/25/2010 04:45 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
Hi all,
I have a question on qpid 0.6 java broker.
I want to limit my queue to only store messages
On 08/20/2010 05:45 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
Hi.
I'm currently looking at the 0-10 transport layer in more detail, and
want to add a (currently) MINA based VM mechanism to the existing
socket based one, and eventually I envisage pluggable OSGi modules
that implement Netty or Grizzly transports
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This discussing needs to be had a bit more broadly so that all involved in
the client can contribute
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
The PMC has nominated and voted Andrew onto the Qpid project as
a committer. Welcome Andrew.
Looking forward to your first commit :-)
regards
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
not necessarily all that fancy but I'd say there's a likeable
minimalist touch to it, and I think it'd be hard to argue its in any way
worse than what we had :)
Robbie
-Original Message-
From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:cctriel...@redhat.com]
Sent: 07 July 2010 23:07
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
not necessarily all that fancy but I'd say there's a likeable
minimalist touch to it, and I think it'd be hard to argue its in any way
worse than what we had :)
Robbie
-Original Message-
From: Carl Trieloff [mailto:cctriel...@redhat.com]
Sent: 07 July 2010 23:07
To: dev
Is there anything we can do to improve this?
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
Cliff has been nominated and voted on as a committer. We've completed
account setup, so looking forward to your first commit!
welcome Cliff.
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
On 06/10/2010 01:21 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
This effort needs to be vendor neutral to encourage participation from
a wider audience, as such it's not appropriate to host in under Qpid
or ActiveMQ.
Apache is vendor neutral!
Carl.
On 06/10/2010 04:28 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
Qpid should be open and inclusive, if it is not perceived as such we
want to change that. What is it that makes 'neutrality' an issue,
especially between two Apache projects?
Ideally it would be great to get participation from other
I've had a brief read, it seem seems the point I was trying to make has
been entirely miss-understood.
How about some IRC, or a call if you can do that and the reflect back to
the list.
Carl.
On 05/19/2010 11:59 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
On 18 May 2010 14:52, Rajith
On 05/19/2010 12:30 PM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
On 19 May 2010 17:22, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I've had a brief read, it seem seems the point I was trying to make has
been entirely miss-understood.
How about some IRC, or a call if you can do that and the reflect back to
Anyone volunteer to work with infra and fix this, + take over ownership of
Qpid JIRA from Cliff.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/BrowseProjects.jspa
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:
On 05/18/2010 07:13 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
On 17 May 2010 17:43, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
part I am confused about in the thread is the following: Why introduce
additional opperations to the ACL file format when they can already
be covered with what is already in the
On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
I'll confess that I'm fairly uncomfortable with any other new .Net API,
especially since the current situation is that we have no client which can
interop across both brokers with all the other clients successfully (with
the Java Broker 0-10 code
On 05/18/2010 10:37 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
Another key point is that if we're going to produce 'bindings' we need to
get much better at backwards compatibility on Qpid. We have existing C++
clients stranded on an old Qpid build as a result of some of our previous
decisions, along with C#
On 05/18/2010 11:39 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
I want one WCF client that works with both brokers and interops with
clients in all languages. I want only one. I want to avoid
the confusion
of having more than one, and I want to avoid putting effort into more
than one
On 05/18/2010 10:49 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote:
What client are you talking about here Carl ?
C++ and Python have been done. Some list discussion has happened on
Java. Ruby needs to be updated to Python style which missed 0.6, I believe
that is not a big job.
I understand that the
1 - 100 of 365 matches
Mail list logo
