Any more opinions out there on the name/version of the new client? If not, I'll likely proceed to update the version to 0.1.0[-SNAPSHOT], leave the module names as qpid-jms-foo, and begin working on setting up a Jenkins job to publish snapshots to repository.apache.org later today or tomorrow.
Robbie On 18 February 2015 at 22:39, Steve Huston <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
