M2 ?

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch. It 
would be good to
get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut the 
release. There
is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on completing M2.

Carl.

Re: M2 ?

[Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>]

Marnie McCormack wrote:
> Hi Rafi,
> 
> Do the python and ruby tests include the kind of simple interop stuff that
> Rupert's been working on for the other implementations ?

Are you referring to the kinds of tests described here?

http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/qpid/Interop+Testing+Specification

I'm afraid I haven't been following that discussion closely. Based on my 
quick read it looks like they do test the kinds of things outlined on 
that page, e.g. basic publish and consume. Most of the tests, however, 
are focused on detailed broker behavior, not interop between different 
kinds of clients.

Alan or Gordon may be able to answer your question better.

--Rafael

> 
> Thanks & Regards,
> Marnie
> 
> 
> On 5/25/07, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>> > Robert Godfrey wrote:
>> >> Anyone want to volunteer to take on the Python or Ruby?
>> >>
>> >> -- Rob
>> >
>> > I might, depending on what's involved. Could someone spell out what
>> > needs to be done here?
>>
>> Code-wise there isn't really anything required for M2 on python or ruby.
>> When the question arose back when on whether or not to include ruby I
>> added some basic test coverage for ruby and fixed a number of issues
>> that came up.
>>
>> Integration-wise we of course need to make sure the ruby and python
>> tests pass against the java and cpp brokers. I just checked the python
>> tests against the java broker and they all pass. There is one failure in
>> the ruby suite. I haven't looked at it in detail. Both test suites
>> should of course be run against the cpp broker as well.
>>
>> --Rafael
>>
> 

Re: M2 ?

[Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Hi Rafi,

Do the python and ruby tests include the kind of simple interop stuff that
Rupert's been working on for the other implementations ?

Thanks & Regards,
Marnie


On 5/25/07, Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Kevin Smith wrote:
> > Robert Godfrey wrote:
> >> Anyone want to volunteer to take on the Python or Ruby?
> >>
> >> -- Rob
> >
> > I might, depending on what's involved. Could someone spell out what
> > needs to be done here?
>
> Code-wise there isn't really anything required for M2 on python or ruby.
> When the question arose back when on whether or not to include ruby I
> added some basic test coverage for ruby and fixed a number of issues
> that came up.
>
> Integration-wise we of course need to make sure the ruby and python
> tests pass against the java and cpp brokers. I just checked the python
> tests against the java broker and they all pass. There is one failure in
> the ruby suite. I haven't looked at it in detail. Both test suites
> should of course be run against the cpp broker as well.
>
> --Rafael
>

Re: M2 ?

[Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>]

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Robert Godfrey wrote:
>> Anyone want to volunteer to take on the Python or Ruby?
>>
>> -- Rob
> 
> I might, depending on what's involved. Could someone spell out what 
> needs to be done here?

Code-wise there isn't really anything required for M2 on python or ruby. 
When the question arose back when on whether or not to include ruby I 
added some basic test coverage for ruby and fixed a number of issues 
that came up.

Integration-wise we of course need to make sure the ruby and python 
tests pass against the java and cpp brokers. I just checked the python 
tests against the java broker and they all pass. There is one failure in 
the ruby suite. I haven't looked at it in detail. Both test suites 
should of course be run against the cpp broker as well.

--Rafael

Re: M2 ?

[Kevin Smith <ks...@redhat.com>]

Robert Godfrey wrote:
> Anyone want to volunteer to take on the Python or Ruby?
> 
> -- Rob

I might, depending on what's involved. Could someone spell out what needs to be 
done here?

--Kevin

Re: M2 ?

[Robert Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>]

Anyone want to volunteer to take on the Python or Ruby?

-- Rob

On 24/05/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Interop tests available on Java and C++, a .Net port is in the pipeline but
> not started yet.
>
> On 24/05/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess the more 'how long is a piece of string' like question is around
> > interop ? (Sorry) I'm a bit detached from progress that Rupert's been
> > making
> > on that front ?
> >
> > Also, there's the python and ruby clients. On account of the votes (and my
> > ignorance of the binding process with components in votes for releases) we
> > are currently compelled to include them. I guess that means they need to
> > work well with both brokers, or we vote to reduce the scope of the
> > release,
> > as well as be doc'd enough for users ?
> >
> > Bfn,
> > Regards,
> > Marnie
> >
> >
> > On 5/24/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been trying to tidy up the Java side also. With some recent
> > > functional additions but mainly it has been fixing the odd bug. There
> > > are a couple of additions that should be JIRAed that would be good to
> > > go in with M2 such as the Mina upgrade(QPID-92) along with limiting
> > > the size of our send/receive buffers so we reduce the OOM issues with
> > > mina, and QPID-465 for JMS compliance.
> > >
> > > We also have a bug in the client where FailoverExceptions can 'escape'
> > > as not all client api calls correctly handle failover,QPID-402.
> > >
> > > The other serious issue is an un-JIRAed item about our implementation
> > > of AMQMessage on the server side. When used in Pub Sub or delivered to
> > > multiple queues then looks like we have a problem.
> > >
> > > Fixing those along with my current work load will probably take us to
> > mid
> > > June.
> > >
> > > On 23/05/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> > > > > Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe
> > > > > already
> > > > > identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.
> > > >
> > > > Alan is on holiday this week. However we have a fix to the apr_pool
> > > > related concurrency issue, channel.flow is implemented and the interop
> > > > tests are written. That more or less covers the open JIRAs I think...
> > a
> > > > couple of them are still marked open as I haven't merged back to trunk
> > > > yet (due to other stuff I've got on the go on trunk!).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Ritchie
> > >
> >
>

Re: M2 ?

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

Interop tests available on Java and C++, a .Net port is in the pipeline but
not started yet.

On 24/05/07, Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess the more 'how long is a piece of string' like question is around
> interop ? (Sorry) I'm a bit detached from progress that Rupert's been
> making
> on that front ?
>
> Also, there's the python and ruby clients. On account of the votes (and my
> ignorance of the binding process with components in votes for releases) we
> are currently compelled to include them. I guess that means they need to
> work well with both brokers, or we vote to reduce the scope of the
> release,
> as well as be doc'd enough for users ?
>
> Bfn,
> Regards,
> Marnie
>
>
> On 5/24/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I've been trying to tidy up the Java side also. With some recent
> > functional additions but mainly it has been fixing the odd bug. There
> > are a couple of additions that should be JIRAed that would be good to
> > go in with M2 such as the Mina upgrade(QPID-92) along with limiting
> > the size of our send/receive buffers so we reduce the OOM issues with
> > mina, and QPID-465 for JMS compliance.
> >
> > We also have a bug in the client where FailoverExceptions can 'escape'
> > as not all client api calls correctly handle failover,QPID-402.
> >
> > The other serious issue is an un-JIRAed item about our implementation
> > of AMQMessage on the server side. When used in Pub Sub or delivered to
> > multiple queues then looks like we have a problem.
> >
> > Fixing those along with my current work load will probably take us to
> mid
> > June.
> >
> > On 23/05/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> > > > Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe
> > > > already
> > > > identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.
> > >
> > > Alan is on holiday this week. However we have a fix to the apr_pool
> > > related concurrency issue, channel.flow is implemented and the interop
> > > tests are written. That more or less covers the open JIRAs I think...
> a
> > > couple of them are still marked open as I haven't merged back to trunk
> > > yet (due to other stuff I've got on the go on trunk!).
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin Ritchie
> >
>

Re: M2 ?

[Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>]

I guess the more 'how long is a piece of string' like question is around
interop ? (Sorry) I'm a bit detached from progress that Rupert's been making
on that front ?

Also, there's the python and ruby clients. On account of the votes (and my
ignorance of the binding process with components in votes for releases) we
are currently compelled to include them. I guess that means they need to
work well with both brokers, or we vote to reduce the scope of the release,
as well as be doc'd enough for users ?

Bfn,
Regards,
Marnie


On 5/24/07, Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've been trying to tidy up the Java side also. With some recent
> functional additions but mainly it has been fixing the odd bug. There
> are a couple of additions that should be JIRAed that would be good to
> go in with M2 such as the Mina upgrade(QPID-92) along with limiting
> the size of our send/receive buffers so we reduce the OOM issues with
> mina, and QPID-465 for JMS compliance.
>
> We also have a bug in the client where FailoverExceptions can 'escape'
> as not all client api calls correctly handle failover,QPID-402.
>
> The other serious issue is an un-JIRAed item about our implementation
> of AMQMessage on the server side. When used in Pub Sub or delivered to
> multiple queues then looks like we have a problem.
>
> Fixing those along with my current work load will probably take us to mid
> June.
>
> On 23/05/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> > > Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe
> > > already
> > > identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.
> >
> > Alan is on holiday this week. However we have a fix to the apr_pool
> > related concurrency issue, channel.flow is implemented and the interop
> > tests are written. That more or less covers the open JIRAs I think... a
> > couple of them are still marked open as I haven't merged back to trunk
> > yet (due to other stuff I've got on the go on trunk!).
> >
>
>
> --
> Martin Ritchie
>

Re: M2 ?

[Martin Ritchie <ri...@apache.org>]

I've been trying to tidy up the Java side also. With some recent
functional additions but mainly it has been fixing the odd bug. There
are a couple of additions that should be JIRAed that would be good to
go in with M2 such as the Mina upgrade(QPID-92) along with limiting
the size of our send/receive buffers so we reduce the OOM issues with
mina, and QPID-465 for JMS compliance.

We also have a bug in the client where FailoverExceptions can 'escape'
as not all client api calls correctly handle failover,QPID-402.

The other serious issue is an un-JIRAed item about our implementation
of AMQMessage on the server side. When used in Pub Sub or delivered to
multiple queues then looks like we have a problem.

Fixing those along with my current work load will probably take us to mid June.

On 23/05/07, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> > Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe
> > already
> > identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.
>
> Alan is on holiday this week. However we have a fix to the apr_pool
> related concurrency issue, channel.flow is implemented and the interop
> tests are written. That more or less covers the open JIRAs I think... a
> couple of them are still marked open as I haven't merged back to trunk
> yet (due to other stuff I've got on the go on trunk!).
>


-- 
Martin Ritchie

Re: M2 ?

[Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>]

Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe 
> already
> identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.

Alan is on holiday this week. However we have a fix to the apr_pool 
related concurrency issue, channel.flow is implemented and the interop 
tests are written. That more or less covers the open JIRAs I think... a 
couple of them are still marked open as I haven't merged back to trunk 
yet (due to other stuff I've got on the go on trunk!).

Re: M2 ?

[Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>]

Alan can u comment on the c++ side. If  I am not mistaken Alan havwe already
identified JIRA's for M2 and is in the process of fixing them.
Rafi how about python stuff?

I have been a bit slow pushing for the M2 release, but perhaps if all stake
holders are ready we up the pace a bit here :)

Regards,

Rajith

On 5/23/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Or rather, making you think there is more going on than there really is ;)
>
> On 23/05/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Most commits I've done on M2 java recently have been for testing, or
> > adding to the Javadoc, perhaps making it look like there's more going on
> > than you think. Fixing a small bug at the moment, but I'd say the
> > development rate for M2 java is approaching stand still. Unless anyone
> has a
> > different opinion?
> >
> > .Net, C++?
> >
> > Rupert
> >
> > On 22/05/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch. It
> > > would be good to
> > > get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut
> the
> > > release. There
> > > is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on
> completing
> > > M2.
> > >
> > > Carl.
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: M2 ?

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

Or rather, making you think there is more going on than there really is ;)

On 23/05/07, Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Most commits I've done on M2 java recently have been for testing, or
> adding to the Javadoc, perhaps making it look like there's more going on
> than you think. Fixing a small bug at the moment, but I'd say the
> development rate for M2 java is approaching stand still. Unless anyone has a
> different opinion?
>
> .Net, C++?
>
> Rupert
>
> On 22/05/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch. It
> > would be good to
> > get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut the
> > release. There
> > is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on completing
> > M2.
> >
> > Carl.
> >
>
>

Re: M2 ?

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Tomas,

As it is a few weeks we can work the languages as they close down, the 
review
process will most likely take a few weeks anyway, so if we do .NET last 
this may
work out.

Carl.


Tomas Restrepo wrote:
> Carl,
>
>   
>> how do you expect the .NET side will need?
>>     
>
> It depends what the overall target for M2 is... I know that at least on the
> .NET side, I'd like to get a chance to add the following:
>
> - Basic tuning of the public API
> - Implement Prefetch
> - Make send/receive buffer sizes configurable
> - Make connection timeout configurable
> - Finish tuning the build scripts
> - More tests
>
> I think we'd likely need at least a couple of weeks for that.
>
> Tomas Restrepo
> http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
>
>
>
>
>   

RE: M2 ?

[Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com>]

Carl,

> how do you expect the .NET side will need?

It depends what the overall target for M2 is... I know that at least on the
.NET side, I'd like to get a chance to add the following:

- Basic tuning of the public API
- Implement Prefetch
- Make send/receive buffer sizes configurable
- Make connection timeout configurable
- Finish tuning the build scripts
- More tests

I think we'd likely need at least a couple of weeks for that.

Tomas Restrepo
http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

Re: M2 ?

[Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>]

Tomas,

how do you expect the .NET side will need?

Carl.


Tomas Restrepo wrote:
> On the .NET Client we've been doing significant changes; adding some missing
> functionality, fixing a bunch of race conditions and failures and improving
> the build quality. Still quite a bit of work to go, but at least I'd like to
> try to clean up the public API a bit and add more tests before closing it
> down.
>
>
> Tomas Restrepo
> http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
>
>
>
>   
>> On 22/05/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch.
>>>       
>> It
>>     
>>> would be good to
>>> get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut
>>>       
>> the
>>     
>>> release. There
>>> is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on
>>>       
>> completing
>>     
>>> M2.
>>>
>>> Carl.
>>>
>>>       
>
>   

RE: M2 ?

[Tomas Restrepo <to...@devdeo.com>]

On the .NET Client we've been doing significant changes; adding some missing
functionality, fixing a bunch of race conditions and failures and improving
the build quality. Still quite a bit of work to go, but at least I'd like to
try to clean up the public API a bit and add more tests before closing it
down.


Tomas Restrepo
http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/



> 
> On 22/05/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch.
> It
> > would be good to
> > get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut
> the
> > release. There
> > is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on
> completing
> > M2.
> >
> > Carl.
> >

Re: M2 ?

[Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>]

Most commits I've done on M2 java recently have been for testing, or adding
to the Javadoc, perhaps making it look like there's more going on than you
think. Fixing a small bug at the moment, but I'd say the development rate
for M2 java is approaching stand still. Unless anyone has a different
opinion?

.Net, C++?

Rupert

On 22/05/07, Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> I see that we still have a reasonable commit rate on the M2 branch. It
> would be good to
> get a estimate from the group when we want to close it done and cut the
> release. There
> is no rush, just wondering where everyone thinks we are at on completing
> M2.
>
> Carl.
>