You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> on 2011/03/04 22:01:35 UTC
Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Hi Justin,
I'd like to include the fix for QPID-3118 in the 0.10 branch
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3118)
The fix is not critical to operation; it only affects the ability to use
the packaging script in qpid/packaging/windows.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/07/2011 12:37 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
>> Some more background on my rationale for this.
>>
>> First, it's all related only to the Windows installer. Whatever is
>> released in the source packages is not affected.
>>
>> The Windows installer installs the requisite Boost headers needed to
>> build the examples. I don't like doing this. If the old-api examples
>> aren't in the install, the Boost headers don't need to be either. And,
>> since any time someone on the user list asks a question re the API the
>> answer often involves a recommendation to use the new API, removing the
>> old-api examples from the installer seems a good idea. People looking
>> for examples should be looking at the new API.
>
> I for one would be perfectly happy with that.
Me too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/07/2011 12:37 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> Some more background on my rationale for this.
>
> First, it's all related only to the Windows installer. Whatever is
> released in the source packages is not affected.
>
> The Windows installer installs the requisite Boost headers needed to
> build the examples. I don't like doing this. If the old-api examples
> aren't in the install, the Boost headers don't need to be either. And,
> since any time someone on the user list asks a question re the API the
> answer often involves a recommendation to use the new API, removing the
> old-api examples from the installer seems a good idea. People looking
> for examples should be looking at the new API.
I for one would be perfectly happy with that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Some more background on my rationale for this.
First, it's all related only to the Windows installer. Whatever is
released in the source packages is not affected.
The Windows installer installs the requisite Boost headers needed to
build the examples. I don't like doing this. If the old-api examples
aren't in the install, the Boost headers don't need to be either. And,
since any time someone on the user list asks a question re the API the
answer often involves a recommendation to use the new API, removing the
old-api examples from the installer seems a good idea. People looking
for examples should be looking at the new API.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:51 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
>
>
> On 03/04/2011 10:02 PM, jross@redhat.com wrote:
> > Hi, Steve. I approved this, but Andrew had a good
> question: whither
> > old api examples?
> >
> > I'm personally conflicted on whether it's best to include them. I
> > lean, however, toward removing them. Examples are principally
> > documentation for new work, and new work should use the new apis.
> >
> > Sorry if this was already discussed. I didn't find anything
> apart from
> > QPID-3067, and that doesn't contain a conclusion.
>
> It doesn't contain a conclusion, but as raised it suggested renaming
> rather than removing and this was backed up by one of the comments.
>
> While my own inclination was to remove them, that seemed the more
> extreme approach and the renaming does very clearly signal the intent.
>
> Arguably, since the old headers are all still included along with the
> new headers, having these examples there and clearly marked as 'old'
> actually makes their status clearer. Really we should be
> marking the old
> APIs deprecated in doxygen I think.
>
> My view would probably be that we leave this as is for now (i.e.
> renamed) but aim to more clearly deprecate the APIs in the
> next release
> (while still supporting them) and remove the examples at that time.
> However I'm not opposed to other solutions including their
> removal for
> this release if others feel strongly enough.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/04/2011 10:02 PM, jross@redhat.com wrote:
> Hi, Steve. I approved this, but Andrew had a good question: whither old
> api examples?
>
> I'm personally conflicted on whether it's best to include them. I lean,
> however, toward removing them. Examples are principally documentation
> for new work, and new work should use the new apis.
>
> Sorry if this was already discussed. I didn't find anything apart from
> QPID-3067, and that doesn't contain a conclusion.
It doesn't contain a conclusion, but as raised it suggested renaming
rather than removing and this was backed up by one of the comments.
While my own inclination was to remove them, that seemed the more
extreme approach and the renaming does very clearly signal the intent.
Arguably, since the old headers are all still included along with the
new headers, having these examples there and clearly marked as 'old'
actually makes their status clearer. Really we should be marking the old
APIs deprecated in doxygen I think.
My view would probably be that we leave this as is for now (i.e.
renamed) but aim to more clearly deprecate the APIs in the next release
(while still supporting them) and remove the examples at that time.
However I'm not opposed to other solutions including their removal for
this release if others feel strongly enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Request for QPID-3118 in 0.10
Posted by jr...@redhat.com.
Hi, Steve. I approved this, but Andrew had a good question: whither old
api examples?
I'm personally conflicted on whether it's best to include them. I lean,
however, toward removing them. Examples are principally documentation for
new work, and new work should use the new apis.
Sorry if this was already discussed. I didn't find anything apart from
QPID-3067, and that doesn't contain a conclusion.
Justin
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Steve Huston wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> I'd like to include the fix for QPID-3118 in the 0.10 branch
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-3118)
>
> The fix is not critical to operation; it only affects the ability to use
> the packaging script in qpid/packaging/windows.
>
> -Steve
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org