You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> on 2012/07/12 18:10:14 UTC
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
So, this thread seemed to stop without us ever actually taking a
concrete action to create a mailing list :-)
I know there were a couple of conversations off-list that happened
after this to try to articulate more clearly what we thought the
target audience of the list was, and how that was different to the
scope of the current lists. I'm sure others will correct me here, but
I *think* that it can be summarized as the need for a list to
* Discuss how to use/integrate the AMQP 1.0 libraries that we are developing
* Discuss with "users" of these libraries any issues they are having /
requirements they may have
* Discuss issues end users may be having getting the libraries to work
with other AMQP 1.0 implementations
In general the idea is that the list would be community facing and a
place where we would discuss AMQP 1.0 support and interoperability
rather than how to deploy and manage the Qpid "brokers" (users of
other brokers should feel equally at home on the proposed list as
those who are using the brokers that we maintain). Developer
discussion amongst committers would remain on dev (where, separately,
we definitely need to ensure we have more discussion of our roadmap as
was already pointed out).
There was previously some questioning whether "proton" would be an
appropriate name for this list, since the scope would clearly include
the Messaging API when has AMQP 1.0 capabilities. I also question
whether using proton as the name may be sub-optimal as it will not be
obvious to those who don't already know what Qpid Proton is. As such
I would propose that
amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org
might be a better name for the mailing list (where implicitly AMQP
means AMQP 1.0).
What are people's thoughts? Would people be happy with this
suggestion? Should I open a vote?
-- Rob
On 27 June 2012 15:37, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 16:48 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> On 06/25/2012 11:55 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>> > It makes sense that the people who are interested in using proton also
>> > want to see a simplified API to get their users started with AMQP 1.0.
>> > It really gives them an immediate ROI for integrating the engine. They
>> > give their users very simple and easy access from the very broad variety
>> > of languages, platforms, and environments that the messenger API can
>> > support.
>>
>> What about the existing messaging API; does it not make sense for them
>> to consider that also for some cases?
>
> Yes, assuming it supports 1.0.
>
> However there is really a lot of demand for, and good synergy when
> proton is sold with something very simplified. Something more
> scripting/web/mobile oriented where literally only one or two lines of
> code is enough to send or receive a message. One of the places where
> AMQP 1.0 shines is the cloudy/mobiley/web enabled scenarios, and in that
> space people expect to see something akin to a pub nub type API.
>
>> On 06/25/2012 06:30 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>> > The fundamental issue here is that Qpid now needs to serve two
>> > audiences. A very horizontal audience made up of pretty much anything
>> > that might ever want to speak AMQP, and a more specialized, vertical
>> > audience of people interested in a particular message broker.
>>
>> I certainly accept that distinction, but are you saying that the first
>> audience would/should only be interested in proton rather than the full
>> range of APIs on offer?
>
> No, I think there's more that we can and should offer, but I do think
> there needs to be a serious and real effort around interoperability with
> stuff outside of qpid for anything that we offer to that audience, and
> right now proton is ahead of the curve on that front as it was
> designed/developed with that in mind and has been tested from the
> beginning against external 1.0 implementations.
>
> I've also found that proton and messenger together make a very
> compelling story and are easy to promote and sell together and could be
> a very powerful tool for bootstrapping the AMQP 1.0 ecosystem, something
> at the core of the Qpid mission. It was with this in mind that I put
> together the proton site. I wanted to keep the story simple, so it
> doesn't go into all of the other 0-X qpid offerings, but I would hope as
> more and more stuff both inside and outside of qpid speaks AMQP 1.0
> (either via proton or in general) we would link to them from the proton
> site as they are all things you could speak to if you integrate proton,
> and all part of the value you get from doing so.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 July 2012 20:28, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2012 06:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
>>>> this
>>>
>>>
>>> why?
>>
>> I was thinking about having a single place to report all "AMQP" related issues.
>> This includes proton, messenger API and the messaging API.
>> IMO It makes sense to have the messaging API under the proton project as well.
>> So perhaps something like "qpid-amqp" is a more appropriate name than
>> qpid-proton . Good for google search too ;)
>> Both 'amqp' and 'qpid' have brand value, so why not make use of it ?
>
> I agree in the case of the mailing list. I think for JIRA we should
> tie the projects to the actual release units (the things with version
> numbers). This may change over time as the whole Qpid project evolves,
> but right now that would mean one for all the components that we
> currently release - the existing "QPID-" JIRA, and one for the stuff
> under /qpid/proton in subversion (which I think makes sense to label
> "PROTON-" in JIRA).
>
> As the project evolves and the release structure changes it may well
> make sense to move to the set you suggest... or we may discover that a
> completely different grouping makes sense. Trying to anticipate now
> what our long term release artefacts are seems premature. What we
> need *now* is a way to raise issues against the code that lives in
> /qpid/proton and to label them into numbered releases in a logical
> way.
Agreed. I was thinking a bit too far ahead.
> -- Rob
>
>
>
>>
>> Apologies if I go off topic here, but thought it was somewhat relevant
>> to this discussion.
>> I think the following components could be thought of as sub projects
>> and have independent release cycles.
>>
>> 1. AMQP libraries + client APIs
>> 2. Messaging Brokers
>> 3. Management tools (QMF and other tools)
>> 4. JMS, WCF and other domain specific clients.
>>
>> Once we implement WCF and JMS properly I don't really see a point in
>> releasing them with the brokers or the rest of the clients.
>>
>> Rajith
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 12 July 2012 20:28, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2012 06:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
>>> this
>>
>>
>> why?
>
> I was thinking about having a single place to report all "AMQP" related issues.
> This includes proton, messenger API and the messaging API.
> IMO It makes sense to have the messaging API under the proton project as well.
> So perhaps something like "qpid-amqp" is a more appropriate name than
> qpid-proton . Good for google search too ;)
> Both 'amqp' and 'qpid' have brand value, so why not make use of it ?
I agree in the case of the mailing list. I think for JIRA we should
tie the projects to the actual release units (the things with version
numbers). This may change over time as the whole Qpid project evolves,
but right now that would mean one for all the components that we
currently release - the existing "QPID-" JIRA, and one for the stuff
under /qpid/proton in subversion (which I think makes sense to label
"PROTON-" in JIRA).
As the project evolves and the release structure changes it may well
make sense to move to the set you suggest... or we may discover that a
completely different grouping makes sense. Trying to anticipate now
what our long term release artefacts are seems premature. What we
need *now* is a way to raise issues against the code that lives in
/qpid/proton and to label them into numbered releases in a logical
way.
-- Rob
>
> Apologies if I go off topic here, but thought it was somewhat relevant
> to this discussion.
> I think the following components could be thought of as sub projects
> and have independent release cycles.
>
> 1. AMQP libraries + client APIs
> 2. Messaging Brokers
> 3. Management tools (QMF and other tools)
> 4. JMS, WCF and other domain specific clients.
>
> Once we implement WCF and JMS properly I don't really see a point in
> releasing them with the brokers or the rest of the clients.
>
> Rajith
>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 06:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>
>> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
>> this
>
>
> why?
I was thinking about having a single place to report all "AMQP" related issues.
This includes proton, messenger API and the messaging API.
IMO It makes sense to have the messaging API under the proton project as well.
So perhaps something like "qpid-amqp" is a more appropriate name than
qpid-proton . Good for google search too ;)
Both 'amqp' and 'qpid' have brand value, so why not make use of it ?
Apologies if I go off topic here, but thought it was somewhat relevant
to this discussion.
I think the following components could be thought of as sub projects
and have independent release cycles.
1. AMQP libraries + client APIs
2. Messaging Brokers
3. Management tools (QMF and other tools)
4. JMS, WCF and other domain specific clients.
Once we implement WCF and JMS properly I don't really see a point in
releasing them with the brokers or the rest of the clients.
Rajith
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 07/12/2012 06:14 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
> this
why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 07/12/2012 06:25 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> the JIRA instances should map to our independently releasable units
Yes, that make sense or your version numbers become confusing(!).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 12 July 2012 19:14, Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm +1 on this.
great.
>
> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
> this, so users of these lists could report issues related to these
> libraries etc. Not sure what we should use as the project name though.
> Proton might be a bit limiting as it should cover the Messaging API
> etc..
>
I don't think there needs to be a 1:1 correspondence between JIRA and
lists, and I don;t think this would be an appropriate name for a JIRA.
I'm personally very happy with a Proton JIRA instance... the JIRA
instances should map to our independently releasable units and
currently I think we expect to be running Proton releases on a
different (more frequent) schedule than the rest of Qpid.
Cheers,
Rob
> Regards,
>
> Rajith
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, this thread seemed to stop without us ever actually taking a
>> concrete action to create a mailing list :-)
>>
>> I know there were a couple of conversations off-list that happened
>> after this to try to articulate more clearly what we thought the
>> target audience of the list was, and how that was different to the
>> scope of the current lists. I'm sure others will correct me here, but
>> I *think* that it can be summarized as the need for a list to
>>
>> * Discuss how to use/integrate the AMQP 1.0 libraries that we are developing
>> * Discuss with "users" of these libraries any issues they are having /
>> requirements they may have
>> * Discuss issues end users may be having getting the libraries to work
>> with other AMQP 1.0 implementations
>>
>> In general the idea is that the list would be community facing and a
>> place where we would discuss AMQP 1.0 support and interoperability
>> rather than how to deploy and manage the Qpid "brokers" (users of
>> other brokers should feel equally at home on the proposed list as
>> those who are using the brokers that we maintain). Developer
>> discussion amongst committers would remain on dev (where, separately,
>> we definitely need to ensure we have more discussion of our roadmap as
>> was already pointed out).
>>
>> There was previously some questioning whether "proton" would be an
>> appropriate name for this list, since the scope would clearly include
>> the Messaging API when has AMQP 1.0 capabilities. I also question
>> whether using proton as the name may be sub-optimal as it will not be
>> obvious to those who don't already know what Qpid Proton is. As such
>> I would propose that
>>
>> amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org
>>
>> might be a better name for the mailing list (where implicitly AMQP
>> means AMQP 1.0).
>>
>> What are people's thoughts? Would people be happy with this
>> suggestion? Should I open a vote?
>>
>> -- Rob
>>
>> On 27 June 2012 15:37, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 16:48 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>>> On 06/25/2012 11:55 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>>> > It makes sense that the people who are interested in using proton also
>>>> > want to see a simplified API to get their users started with AMQP 1.0.
>>>> > It really gives them an immediate ROI for integrating the engine. They
>>>> > give their users very simple and easy access from the very broad variety
>>>> > of languages, platforms, and environments that the messenger API can
>>>> > support.
>>>>
>>>> What about the existing messaging API; does it not make sense for them
>>>> to consider that also for some cases?
>>>
>>> Yes, assuming it supports 1.0.
>>>
>>> However there is really a lot of demand for, and good synergy when
>>> proton is sold with something very simplified. Something more
>>> scripting/web/mobile oriented where literally only one or two lines of
>>> code is enough to send or receive a message. One of the places where
>>> AMQP 1.0 shines is the cloudy/mobiley/web enabled scenarios, and in that
>>> space people expect to see something akin to a pub nub type API.
>>>
>>>> On 06/25/2012 06:30 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>>> > The fundamental issue here is that Qpid now needs to serve two
>>>> > audiences. A very horizontal audience made up of pretty much anything
>>>> > that might ever want to speak AMQP, and a more specialized, vertical
>>>> > audience of people interested in a particular message broker.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly accept that distinction, but are you saying that the first
>>>> audience would/should only be interested in proton rather than the full
>>>> range of APIs on offer?
>>>
>>> No, I think there's more that we can and should offer, but I do think
>>> there needs to be a serious and real effort around interoperability with
>>> stuff outside of qpid for anything that we offer to that audience, and
>>> right now proton is ahead of the curve on that front as it was
>>> designed/developed with that in mind and has been tested from the
>>> beginning against external 1.0 implementations.
>>>
>>> I've also found that proton and messenger together make a very
>>> compelling story and are easy to promote and sell together and could be
>>> a very powerful tool for bootstrapping the AMQP 1.0 ecosystem, something
>>> at the core of the Qpid mission. It was with this in mind that I put
>>> together the proton site. I wanted to keep the story simple, so it
>>> doesn't go into all of the other 0-X qpid offerings, but I would hope as
>>> more and more stuff both inside and outside of qpid speaks AMQP 1.0
>>> (either via proton or in general) we would link to them from the proton
>>> site as they are all things you could speak to if you integrate proton,
>>> and all part of the value you get from doing so.
>>>
>>> --Rafael
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 01:14:05PM -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> I'm +1 on this.
>
> I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
> this, so users of these lists could report issues related to these
> libraries etc. Not sure what we should use as the project name though.
> Proton might be a bit limiting as it should cover the Messaging API
> etc..
Would qpid-proton not be clear enough, or would having qpid in the name
be confusing to people?
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
I'm +1 on this.
I think we should also consider a separate JIRA instance to go with
this, so users of these lists could report issues related to these
libraries etc. Not sure what we should use as the project name though.
Proton might be a bit limiting as it should cover the Messaging API
etc..
Regards,
Rajith
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, this thread seemed to stop without us ever actually taking a
> concrete action to create a mailing list :-)
>
> I know there were a couple of conversations off-list that happened
> after this to try to articulate more clearly what we thought the
> target audience of the list was, and how that was different to the
> scope of the current lists. I'm sure others will correct me here, but
> I *think* that it can be summarized as the need for a list to
>
> * Discuss how to use/integrate the AMQP 1.0 libraries that we are developing
> * Discuss with "users" of these libraries any issues they are having /
> requirements they may have
> * Discuss issues end users may be having getting the libraries to work
> with other AMQP 1.0 implementations
>
> In general the idea is that the list would be community facing and a
> place where we would discuss AMQP 1.0 support and interoperability
> rather than how to deploy and manage the Qpid "brokers" (users of
> other brokers should feel equally at home on the proposed list as
> those who are using the brokers that we maintain). Developer
> discussion amongst committers would remain on dev (where, separately,
> we definitely need to ensure we have more discussion of our roadmap as
> was already pointed out).
>
> There was previously some questioning whether "proton" would be an
> appropriate name for this list, since the scope would clearly include
> the Messaging API when has AMQP 1.0 capabilities. I also question
> whether using proton as the name may be sub-optimal as it will not be
> obvious to those who don't already know what Qpid Proton is. As such
> I would propose that
>
> amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org
>
> might be a better name for the mailing list (where implicitly AMQP
> means AMQP 1.0).
>
> What are people's thoughts? Would people be happy with this
> suggestion? Should I open a vote?
>
> -- Rob
>
> On 27 June 2012 15:37, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 16:48 +0100, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> On 06/25/2012 11:55 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>> > It makes sense that the people who are interested in using proton also
>>> > want to see a simplified API to get their users started with AMQP 1.0.
>>> > It really gives them an immediate ROI for integrating the engine. They
>>> > give their users very simple and easy access from the very broad variety
>>> > of languages, platforms, and environments that the messenger API can
>>> > support.
>>>
>>> What about the existing messaging API; does it not make sense for them
>>> to consider that also for some cases?
>>
>> Yes, assuming it supports 1.0.
>>
>> However there is really a lot of demand for, and good synergy when
>> proton is sold with something very simplified. Something more
>> scripting/web/mobile oriented where literally only one or two lines of
>> code is enough to send or receive a message. One of the places where
>> AMQP 1.0 shines is the cloudy/mobiley/web enabled scenarios, and in that
>> space people expect to see something akin to a pub nub type API.
>>
>>> On 06/25/2012 06:30 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>>> > The fundamental issue here is that Qpid now needs to serve two
>>> > audiences. A very horizontal audience made up of pretty much anything
>>> > that might ever want to speak AMQP, and a more specialized, vertical
>>> > audience of people interested in a particular message broker.
>>>
>>> I certainly accept that distinction, but are you saying that the first
>>> audience would/should only be interested in proton rather than the full
>>> range of APIs on offer?
>>
>> No, I think there's more that we can and should offer, but I do think
>> there needs to be a serious and real effort around interoperability with
>> stuff outside of qpid for anything that we offer to that audience, and
>> right now proton is ahead of the curve on that front as it was
>> designed/developed with that in mind and has been tested from the
>> beginning against external 1.0 implementations.
>>
>> I've also found that proton and messenger together make a very
>> compelling story and are easy to promote and sell together and could be
>> a very powerful tool for bootstrapping the AMQP 1.0 ecosystem, something
>> at the core of the Qpid mission. It was with this in mind that I put
>> together the proton site. I wanted to keep the story simple, so it
>> doesn't go into all of the other 0-X qpid offerings, but I would hope as
>> more and more stuff both inside and outside of qpid speaks AMQP 1.0
>> (either via proton or in general) we would link to them from the proton
>> site as they are all things you could speak to if you integrate proton,
>> and all part of the value you get from doing so.
>>
>> --Rafael
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/13/2012 07:36 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>>
>> We should probably have a general discussion about what we want to do
>> as a project going forward.
>> While it's difficult to nail down a set strategy as a lot of pieces
>> are still evolving, an honest dialogue about what we would want "QPid"
>> to become is a good thing to have.
>
>
> Always true! However my point was that we don't need to tie that to the
> naming (or existence) of the proposed list.
I totally agree.
But in reality I think that lack of consensus (and/or understanding)
on the bigger picture has contributed to this issue in some way.
Rajith
> As I understand it there is a desire for a proton list. Though there may not
> be complete clarity on the scope of proton or its relationship to other
> pieces in the Qpid picture, I think it would at least be clear what that
> list was for.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 07/13/2012 07:36 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> We should probably have a general discussion about what we want to do
> as a project going forward.
> While it's difficult to nail down a set strategy as a lot of pieces
> are still evolving, an honest dialogue about what we would want "QPid"
> to become is a good thing to have.
Always true! However my point was that we don't need to tie that to the
naming (or existence) of the proposed list.
As I understand it there is a desire for a proton list. Though there may
not be complete clarity on the scope of proton or its relationship to
other pieces in the Qpid picture, I think it would at least be clear
what that list was for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2012 10:26 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>
>> The way that we choose to divide and sub-divide our work
>> would seem subject to change, what is part of the current "Proton"
>> stream may not always be so in the future.
>
>
> I think this point gets to the heart of the matter.
>
> The proton initiative brings a change in emphasis. Where previously our
> focus was on AMQP compliant brokers and 'clients', proton is more explicit
> in its aim in being embeddable by other brokers and clients[1].
>
> As a community, while I think we are all supportive of that, we do not all
> have complete clarity as to where that change in emphasis may lead or what
> it means for users.
>
> I think this lack of clarity, consensus and certainty is entangled with the
> discussion on a separate list, but in fact exists whether or not there is a
> new list and whatever that list is called.
>
We should probably have a general discussion about what we want to do
as a project going forward.
While it's difficult to nail down a set strategy as a lot of pieces
are still evolving, an honest dialogue about what we would want "QPid"
to become is a good thing to have.
I felt that the opposition (or support) for the list was based on
various assumptions and demonstrates the lack of consensus and clarity
as a team. I agree 100% with Gordon's comments. The issue with the
mailing list is just a symptom of a more larger problem we have in the
project.
We need to ask ourselves what we want to achieve collectively as a
project, so our individual contributions on a daily basis reflects
that.
Or else we will all pull in different directions, which will only hurt
us long term.
Regards,
Rajith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 07/12/2012 10:26 PM, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> There are two reasons why I think amqp-libraries@ is strictly superior
> to proton@.
>
> Firstly, while you may consider "proton" as a distinct stream of work,
> I'm not sure how that works with something like the messaging API
> which fits in with your "quadrant" of APIs, but is clearly not part of
> Proton as we know it today.
>
> Secondly, as I previously stated, I think that for a new user
> searching for information on AMQP libraries, the obvious list to look
> for would be "amqp-libraries". The name proton is pretty meaningless
> unless you already know it. (There is also perhaps some general value
> for us in having the association between "qpid", "amqp" and "library"
> become more obvious to search engines).
>
> In any case I'm not sure that "stream of work" is the right way to
> define mailing lists for the user community. Stream of work is a
> concept that is meaningful to us, the committers, but a user will be
> looking for functionality - which is a more natural definition of a
> mailing list.
I would argue that the user list is the most obvious channel for a new
(potential) user to start asking questions, assuming they find their way
to Qpid in the first place. The web site content is even more important
here as many visitors will not bother to join a list an ask questions
that the site doesn't answer clearly.
> The way that we choose to divide and sub-divide our work
> would seem subject to change, what is part of the current "Proton"
> stream may not always be so in the future.
I think this point gets to the heart of the matter.
The proton initiative brings a change in emphasis. Where previously our
focus was on AMQP compliant brokers and 'clients', proton is more
explicit in its aim in being embeddable by other brokers and clients[1].
As a community, while I think we are all supportive of that, we do not
all have complete clarity as to where that change in emphasis may lead
or what it means for users.
I think this lack of clarity, consensus and certainty is entangled with
the discussion on a separate list, but in fact exists whether or not
there is a new list and whatever that list is called.
I myself do not at present feel the need for a different list; my
preference would be for all discussions to happen on the user list[2].
However those closer to the work and the audience for it are clear there
is a need. As I understand it, the *immediate* need really *is* for
something focused on proton.
Yes, that might change. Yes, in the future there may be a different (or
additional) division. Right now however, those interested in the list
are aware of proton and want to discuss that specific component (in its
different flavours)[3]. For the audience necessitating the list, proton
seems the more obvious name.
Now, in addition to proton, AMQP 1.0 brings a renewed opportunity for,
and emphasis on, interoperability alongside the focus on features and
usability for the other Qpid components.
That may mean a list focused more on mapping to the protocol than on the
features of various Qpid components becomes useful. I don't think that
should be restricted to 'libraries' though. It would for example seem a
natural place to discuss extensions such as the filters registered under
the Apache domain, or inter-broker message transfer between different
brokers.
This may of course diverge from what you are proposing. I think that is
the problem with an 'amqp' (or 'amqp-libraries') list; its scope seems
blurry to me in a way that the scope of a proton list is not[4]. I'm
also less clear on the reason for separating this from the user list at
this point in time[5]. Again, the immediate need seems to be to discuss
proton.
Lists can always be renamed, migrated, merged or split apart as needs
dictate so we can adapt and evolve as we get a sense of what
conversations and discussions actually emerge. If creating a new list
I'd go with the name and scope that makes most sense here and now and
that to me is proton.
This thread has itself been very useful so far in prompting some
discussion and provoking though and whetever we decide I really hope we
keep that going.
--Gordon.
[1] It also brings a change in tactics, with more consideration being
placed on simplicity of swig wrapping in the design of the API than has
occurred previously.
[2] Which to some extent disqualifies me from adding my 2 cents, however...
[3] That proton is an amqp library, its target audience and distinctive
characteristics, its relation to other components within Qpid are all
points we need to communicate clearly but I don't think they need to
impact the name of the list.
[4] The scope of the proton components themselves may of course be
subject to discussion.
[5] I do see value in a distinct list for the AMQP community, which
would clearly be distinct from the Qpid users list. I myself would have
no issue with that being hosted by Qpid either. I see that as distinct
from a list on which the interoperability aspects of Qpid are discussed.
This is another example of the vaguer scope of an amqp list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 23:26 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> There are two reasons why I think amqp-libraries@ is strictly superior
> to proton@.
>
> Firstly, while you may consider "proton" as a distinct stream of work,
> I'm not sure how that works with something like the messaging API
> which fits in with your "quadrant" of APIs, but is clearly not part of
> Proton as we know it today.
Fitting into the matrix doesn't say much one way or the other. The
matrix is categorizing APIs according to user requirements. Lots of APIs
will fit in the matrix, even APIs developed elsewhere which clearly
wouldn't belong on any qpid mailing list.
The reason that the matrix is relevant to proton is that as the goal of
proton is to provide for the easiest possible integration of AMQP 1.0
into the widest possible range of applications, it needs to cater to all
four quadrants of that matrix, i.e. make it super easy to integrate with
an application or API that uses any one of those models.
>From that perspective, I see the future of the messaging API happening
in two places. Part of it I think will happen in the proton work stream
as I would like to see the future messaging API built on top of proton
and I think it should take as much advantage as possible of the
architecture proton has for delivering functionality into lots of
different languages, e.g. the swig bindings, the python/jython testing
infrastructure, etc. This part of it I think really constitutes filling
out proton's functionality in the upper right quadrant of the matrix,
and I see developers of the future messaging API participating in the
proton work stream discussions in the role of proton users.
The second part which I see happening outside the proton work stream is
really to do with the messaging APIs origins. It's core requirement from
the start has been to provide a way for users of the qpid brokers to
transition to 1.0 from older protocols. As such there are very likely
things that the implementation of the future messaging API will want to
do that may well be specific to the qpid brokers, and doing this is
perfectly in keeping with that original goal of the messaging APIs, but
is not consistent with the goal of proton which requires being broker
agnostic. These sorts of things I would expect to be part of the
discussion between the future messaging API developers and the future
messaging API users, which would really be a conversation that happens
on the current qpid lists.
> Secondly, as I previously stated, I think that for a new user
> searching for information on AMQP libraries, the obvious list to look
> for would be "amqp-libraries". The name proton is pretty meaningless
> unless you already know it. (There is also perhaps some general value
> for us in having the association between "qpid", "amqp" and "library"
> become more obvious to search engines).
If you look at what "amqp library" pulls up now, it's really difficult
to see how a mailing list name will make *any* difference to the
results. What we really need is a highly connected web page that makes
mention of those words.
I also think that particular concern is only relevant for people who
already know about amqp, and we actually care about a much broader
audience than that. I think we need words like "simple, easy,
request/response, pub/sub, messaging, ..." to lead people to us as well,
and we're obviously not going to cram all of those into a mailing list
name.
> In any case I'm not sure that "stream of work" is the right way to
> define mailing lists for the user community. Stream of work is a
> concept that is meaningful to us, the committers, but a user will be
> looking for functionality - which is a more natural definition of a
> mailing list. The way that we choose to divide and sub-divide our work
> would seem subject to change, what is part of the current "Proton"
> stream may not always be so in the future.
So to be clear when I talk about "stream of work" I'm not talking about
a few people allocated to spend a couple man months on feature X. I'm
talking about an ongoing stream of work that will involve a multi year
dialog between the developers of said work and its users, and I think
the whole point of mailing lists is to facilitate that dialog, so the
stream of work is really all that's relevant.
I think generally when people join a mailing list it's because they want
to talk to a group of people, usually because they have a specific
problem they need help with, not because they want to discuss an
abstract category of functionality.
--Rafael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
There are two reasons why I think amqp-libraries@ is strictly superior
to proton@.
Firstly, while you may consider "proton" as a distinct stream of work,
I'm not sure how that works with something like the messaging API
which fits in with your "quadrant" of APIs, but is clearly not part of
Proton as we know it today.
Secondly, as I previously stated, I think that for a new user
searching for information on AMQP libraries, the obvious list to look
for would be "amqp-libraries". The name proton is pretty meaningless
unless you already know it. (There is also perhaps some general value
for us in having the association between "qpid", "amqp" and "library"
become more obvious to search engines).
In any case I'm not sure that "stream of work" is the right way to
define mailing lists for the user community. Stream of work is a
concept that is meaningful to us, the committers, but a user will be
looking for functionality - which is a more natural definition of a
mailing list. The way that we choose to divide and sub-divide our work
would seem subject to change, what is part of the current "Proton"
stream may not always be so in the future.
-- Rob
On 12 July 2012 22:53, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 18:10 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote:
>>
> To me, proton is very clearly a distinct stream of work. While
> amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org is probably better than using the current
> user list, I feel like the obvious list to create is
> proton@qpid.apache.org. I think there is a good chance that an
> amqp-libraries list will just end up being an oddly named list for the
> proton sub-project anyways. Any additional separate streams of work that
> come along will probably want their own list for the same reasons as
> proton.
>
> --Rafael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 18:10 +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> So, this thread seemed to stop without us ever actually taking a
> concrete action to create a mailing list :-)
>
> I know there were a couple of conversations off-list that happened
> after this to try to articulate more clearly what we thought the
> target audience of the list was, and how that was different to the
> scope of the current lists. I'm sure others will correct me here, but
> I *think* that it can be summarized as the need for a list to
>
> * Discuss how to use/integrate the AMQP 1.0 libraries that we are developing
> * Discuss with "users" of these libraries any issues they are having /
> requirements they may have
> * Discuss issues end users may be having getting the libraries to work
> with other AMQP 1.0 implementations
>
> In general the idea is that the list would be community facing and a
> place where we would discuss AMQP 1.0 support and interoperability
> rather than how to deploy and manage the Qpid "brokers" (users of
> other brokers should feel equally at home on the proposed list as
> those who are using the brokers that we maintain). Developer
> discussion amongst committers would remain on dev (where, separately,
> we definitely need to ensure we have more discussion of our roadmap as
> was already pointed out).
>
> There was previously some questioning whether "proton" would be an
> appropriate name for this list, since the scope would clearly include
> the Messaging API when has AMQP 1.0 capabilities. I also question
> whether using proton as the name may be sub-optimal as it will not be
> obvious to those who don't already know what Qpid Proton is. As such
> I would propose that
>
> amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org
>
> might be a better name for the mailing list (where implicitly AMQP
> means AMQP 1.0).
>
> What are people's thoughts? Would people be happy with this
> suggestion? Should I open a vote?
To me, proton is very clearly a distinct stream of work. While
amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org is probably better than using the current
user list, I feel like the obvious list to create is
proton@qpid.apache.org. I think there is a good chance that an
amqp-libraries list will just end up being an oddly named list for the
proton sub-project anyways. Any additional separate streams of work that
come along will probably want their own list for the same reasons as
proton.
--Rafael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: Proton Update/Draft Website
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:10:14PM +0200, Rob Godfrey wrote:
> So, this thread seemed to stop without us ever actually taking a
> concrete action to create a mailing list :-)
>
> I know there were a couple of conversations off-list that happened
> after this to try to articulate more clearly what we thought the
> target audience of the list was, and how that was different to the
> scope of the current lists. I'm sure others will correct me here, but
> I *think* that it can be summarized as the need for a list to
>
> * Discuss how to use/integrate the AMQP 1.0 libraries that we are developing
> * Discuss with "users" of these libraries any issues they are having /
> requirements they may have
> * Discuss issues end users may be having getting the libraries to work
> with other AMQP 1.0 implementations
>
> In general the idea is that the list would be community facing and a
> place where we would discuss AMQP 1.0 support and interoperability
> rather than how to deploy and manage the Qpid "brokers" (users of
> other brokers should feel equally at home on the proposed list as
> those who are using the brokers that we maintain). Developer
> discussion amongst committers would remain on dev (where, separately,
> we definitely need to ensure we have more discussion of our roadmap as
> was already pointed out).
>
> There was previously some questioning whether "proton" would be an
> appropriate name for this list, since the scope would clearly include
> the Messaging API when has AMQP 1.0 capabilities. I also question
> whether using proton as the name may be sub-optimal as it will not be
> obvious to those who don't already know what Qpid Proton is. As such
> I would propose that
>
> amqp-libraries@qpid.apache.org
>
> might be a better name for the mailing list (where implicitly AMQP
> means AMQP 1.0).
>
> What are people's thoughts? Would people be happy with this
> suggestion? Should I open a vote?
+1 on the mailing list
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/