Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Qpid Proton 0.10 released

On 17/08/15 21:57 +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote: On 17 August 2015 at 21:11, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: [snip] Is that something we can change in qpid-proton ? I'm entirely on board personally with including the extra digit all the time (and actually using it to do more regular

A case in favor of separate repos for language bindings

Greetings, I'd like to take a chance, now that 0.10 is out, to make a point in favor of using submodules rather than having all bindings in the same repository. I think qpid-proton has reached the point where it's mature enough to have some of the bindings promoted to having their own repos.

[jira] [Commented] (PROTON-984) Document proton-j time units

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-984?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14701208#comment-14701208 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on PROTON-984: --- GitHub user boo opened a pull request:

[GitHub] qpid-proton pull request: PROTON-984: Document proton-j time units

GitHub user boo opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/50 PROTON-984: Document proton-j time units Can somebody help me fill out the blanks here? I think proton-j uses milliseconds throughout, and what does Reactor#setTimeout() do? You can merge this

[GitHub] qpid-proton pull request: Proton 980

GitHub user boo opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/49 Proton 980 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/boo/qpid-proton proton-980 Alternatively you can review and apply these

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-984) Document proton-j time units

Bozo Dragojevic created PROTON-984: -- Summary: Document proton-j time units Key: PROTON-984 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-984 Project: Qpid Proton Issue Type: Improvement

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-982) Make proton python tests compatible with unittest

Bozo Dragojevic created PROTON-982: -- Summary: Make proton python tests compatible with unittest Key: PROTON-982 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-982 Project: Qpid Proton

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-983) Expose Event.copy() to bindings

Bozo Dragojevic created PROTON-983: -- Summary: Expose Event.copy() to bindings Key: PROTON-983 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-983 Project: Qpid Proton Issue Type:

[jira] [Commented] (PROTON-964) Proton-J extensible event types

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-964?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14701142#comment-14701142 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on PROTON-964: --- Github user asfgit closed the pull request

Re: All about proton memory management (or C++, python and Go - Oh My!)

On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 12:09 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 07:38 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: Nice writeup! I agree. Andrew [Did you make a pass through the doc to ensure that the claimed API doc is actually there? that is, doc on ownership and scope?] No,

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-985) Modify pn_transport_tick to explicitly use a monotonic clock, not wall clock time

Ken Giusti created PROTON-985: - Summary: Modify pn_transport_tick to explicitly use a monotonic clock, not wall clock time Key: PROTON-985 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-985 Project:

[jira] [Created] (PROTON-986) [C] proton-dump assumes one AMQP header

Chuck Rolke created PROTON-986: -- Summary: [C] proton-dump assumes one AMQP header Key: PROTON-986 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-986 Project: Qpid Proton Issue Type:

[jira] [Commented] (PROTON-986) [C] proton-dump assumes one AMQP header

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-986?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=14701524#comment-14701524 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on PROTON-986: Commit

Re: All about proton memory management (or C++, python and Go - Oh My!)

On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 07:38 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: Nice writeup! I agree. Andrew [Did you make a pass through the doc to ensure that the claimed API doc is actually there? that is, doc on ownership and scope?]