On 03/25/2011 12:03 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 25 March 2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
One clear sub topic that emerged out of the "Qpid and AMQP 1-0: Plans?"
thread was the discussion about the project structure.
It was obvious that everybody dislikes the current structure and rightly
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
>
>
> On 25 March 2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>
>> One clear sub topic that emerged out of the "Qpid and AMQP 1-0: Plans?"
>> thread was the discussion about the project structure.
>> It was obvious that everybody dislikes the curren
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 25 March 2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
qpid/transport/{trunk/branch}
qpid/client/{trunk/branch}
qpid/broker/{trunk/branch}
qpid/qmf/{trunk/branch}
So - I think this is my aspirational directory structure...
I'm +1 on this, too. It would
On 25 March 2011 17:13, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 25/03/2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
>
>
> Proposed structure.
>> =
>> 1. I would like to see the following sub projects under Qpid with their
>> own
>> top level svn directory.
>>
>> qpid/transport/{trunk/branch}
>> qpid
Le 25/03/2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu a écrit :
Proposed structure.
=
1. I would like to see the following sub projects under Qpid with their own
top level svn directory.
qpid/transport/{trunk/branch}
qpid/client/{trunk/branch}
qpid/broker/{trunk/branch}
qpid/qmf/{trunk/branch}
On 25 March 2011 16:32, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> One clear sub topic that emerged out of the "Qpid and AMQP 1-0: Plans?"
> thread was the discussion about the project structure.
> It was obvious that everybody dislikes the current structure and rightly so
> as it has contributed a lot towards a
One clear sub topic that emerged out of the "Qpid and AMQP 1-0: Plans?"
thread was the discussion about the project structure.
It was obvious that everybody dislikes the current structure and rightly so
as it has contributed a lot towards a lot of duplication and
management/maintainability issues.
