Good question, though one I do not have as yet an answer for. However,
the classes used purely for the encoding/decoding in java are currently
about 150K unoptimised. They do also rely on Mina at present which is
278K. There would be a small amount on top of this most to tie this all
into a
Garrett Rooney wrote:
Finally, and I hate to say this because it may very well be just a
cultural difference between projects the Glasgow developers have
worked on and the way things work in ASF projects I'm familiar with, I
think it's disturbing that all answers to questions concerning this
Danny Angus wrote:
I think it is about time that we grew up and introduced a rule which
prevents words already used as proper nouns from being proposed as
project names unless there is some real and relevant on-topic
connection.
Just by way of explanation, this name was proposed as (a) it is
Brian McCallister wrote:
If the goal is to create a standard protocol for messaging stuff, this
requires a lot of buy in from a wide range of parties. Keeping the
protocol behind closed doors and with a mysterious future sabotages
this. Transparency is, I believe, a major requirement for
IANAL, but I believe Carl has volunteered to get legal clarifications on
any points you consider nebulous. I agree with you that the terms are
well intentioned, and intention is often the critical issue. The
objective of those who were in involved in the creation of this spec
(though I am not
James Strachan wrote:
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
Blaze is about only AMQP, a proposed standard for interoperable
messaging.
ActiveMQ implements multiple protocols. There is some disagreement
between
AMQP proponents and the ActiveMQ team regarding
James Strachan wrote:
I hope to see some collaboration further
down the line so that code can be reused across ActiveMQ and Blaze.
Agreed!
Paul Fremantle wrote:
I think it would be interesting to see a confluence of the APIs and
protocols between ActiveMQ and Blaze giving interoperability in
