On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, Justin Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
>> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
>> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
>> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
>> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
>> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
>> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
>> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
>> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
>> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
>> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
>> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
>> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
>> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>>
>
> All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
> strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1 gets
> the point across well enough.
>
Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want
to do, but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
>
>> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
>> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
>> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
>> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
>> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
>> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>>
>
> I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
> qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
> JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to direct
> users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>
Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely
appropriate name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been
able to think of anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of
whether its a bit overloaded. I'm happy to leave it as it is if people
think we can manage things going forward though.
> Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
> "prototype"?
I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd
possibly go with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite
possibly leave it unchanged.
>
> On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being visible but
> not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra navigation.
> The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the featured
> offerings (especially the former).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
