So, the initial thinking for AMQP Management has (finally) now been
uploaded so that anyone can see it [1]. As Fraser mentioned, the scope of
the AMQP Management work at OASIS is currently purely about mechanism and
not defining specific operations / attributes that are available on a
managed
On 06/05/13 12:11, Gordon Sim wrote:
For my part, I am in favour of removing QMFv1 support, if necessary
providing some sort of adapter or plugin to deal with any use cases
for which this might prove problematic. I think QMFv2 is now firmly
established as the current management mechanism for
, 2013 7:11:18 AM
Subject: Plans for QMF v1 and v2 (was Re: QMFv2 object update bug [WAS Re:
Questions from a novice])
On 05/03/2013 04:51 PM, Ken Giusti wrote:
I want to know what the
QPID project's plan is for QMFv1/v2 support in the C++ broker going
forward.
If the consensus
we get to 1.x, but for 0.x, this has been the case.
-K
- Original Message -
From: Bill Freeman ke1g...@gmail.com
To: Qpid Dev dev@qpid.apache.org
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:53:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: QMFv2 object update bug [WAS Re: Questions from a novice]
I messed up and only
I messed up and only sent this tor Fraser originally, but intended it for
all.
Bill
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Freeman ke1g...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: QMFv2 object update bug [WAS Re: Questions from a novice]
To: Fraser Adams fraser.ad
On 26/04/13 17:18, Ken Giusti wrote:
Hey Bill,
I first started to implement the additional objectUpdate callback as originally
proposed. Very easy to do. But that additional api required other tools to be
updated - and additional documentation changes, etc.
Hmm I remain a little baffled
...@redhat.com
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: QMFv2 object update bug [WAS Re: Questions from a novice]
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Ken Giusti kgiu...@redhat.com wrote:
Folks,
Recently I submitted a fix on trunk that addressed a problem where QMF v2
object update
Thanks Ken,
I definitely think it's a far better proposal to provide an API
extension (objectUpdate) than rather than something which is confusing
at best (and more likely a breaking change that will probably break in
subtle ways).
One thing though, I think that we discussed on the main
- Original Message -
From: Fraser Adams fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk
To: Ken Giusti kgiu...@redhat.com
Cc: dev@qpid.apache.org, ke1g nh ke1g...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:40:36 AM
Subject: Re: QMFv2 object update bug [WAS Re: Questions from a novice]
snip
One
On 11/04/13 16:05, Ken Giusti wrote:
One thing though, I think that we discussed on the main thread (and Bill
mentioned this too) about providing an extension to specify the QMF
version to consume.
To be frank - I think any effort expended going forward to make it easier to
have both QMFv1 and
10 matches
Mail list logo
