> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:41 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
>
> 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.
+1 to that.
> >> 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.
I agree with Justin to position the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client as Qpid JMS, even
at the risk of some short term confusion.
> > 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.
I think that leaving it as is is fine, and make the distinction on the web
site, aiming to have just the Qpid JMS after a small number of releases.
> > 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).
+1
-Steve
