You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to proton@qpid.apache.org by Mary Hinton <m....@nc.rr.com> on 2013/01/01 18:21:58 UTC
RE: Language example apps...
> In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 if
> we do something with C++).
Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone currently
working on creating C++ examples?
Thanks,
Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
To: proton@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Language example apps...
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
<dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
>
> > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for Proton
> > across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> >
> > C Python Ruby Perl
> > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> >
>
> We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
Yeah, sorry to forget that.
> What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack of
> > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show very
> > simple point-to-point messaging.
> >
> > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing that
> > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> >
> > Ideas?
> >
>
> A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
>
> I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really be
> messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth having non
> messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as those
> kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining duplicate
> examples involves some significant maintenance effort. I would rather
> see a very well maintained/structured C example for the non messenger
> stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't bother exposing
> the non messenger APIs through the bindings at all, with the exception
> of python for testing purposes of course. To be clear I'm not opposed
> to exposing them, I just don't think there is any demand at this point
> and I think it just creates unnecessary work until there is.
>
> In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 if
> we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a basic,
> well thought out, but simple messenger based example geared towards
> getting people started, and strive to keep that consistent and up to
> date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to one language
> only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems most appropriate
> for that particular deep scenario.
If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the bindings, then
one language doing a deep example and others doing more general examples
should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to understand for
someone not familiar with it to follow.
--
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: Language example apps...
Posted by William Henry <wh...@redhat.com>.
No problem Hinton. ;-)
-William
----- Original Message -----
> Thanks Henry,
> I asked my question wrong.
> I was really wondering if anyone was working on a set of C++ tests,
> similar to the Python tests.
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Henry [mailto:whenry@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:51 PM
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Cc: dpierce@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Language example apps...
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work
> because the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton
> C API under the covers.
>
> That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure this
> is true.
>
> Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples
> (?). i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton
> enabled C++ API? Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton
> addressing with the more complex previous addressing that allowed us
> to build exchanges and queues?
>
> William
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > > if
> > > we do something with C++).
> >
> > Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone
> > currently working on creating C++ examples?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mary
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Language example apps...
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
> > <dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for
> > > > Proton across language bindings. What I found are the
> > > > following:
> > > >
> > > > C Python Ruby Perl
> > > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > > >
> > >
> > > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
> >
> > Yeah, sorry to forget that.
> >
> > > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack
> > > of
> > > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show
> > > > very
> > > > simple point-to-point messaging.
> > > >
> > > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing
> > > > that
> > > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> > > >
> > > > Ideas?
> > > >
> > >
> > > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> > >
> > > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really
> > > be
> > > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth
> > > having
> > > non messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as
> > > those kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining
> > > duplicate examples involves some significant maintenance effort.
> > > I
> > > would rather see a very well maintained/structured C example for
> > > the
> > > non messenger stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't
> > > bother exposing the non messenger APIs through the bindings at
> > > all,
> > > with the exception of python for testing purposes of course. To
> > > be
> > > clear I'm not opposed to exposing them, I just don't think there
> > > is
> > > any demand at this point and I think it just creates unnecessary
> > > work until there is.
> > >
> > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > > if
> > > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a
> > > basic, well thought out, but simple messenger based example
> > > geared
> > > towards getting people started, and strive to keep that
> > > consistent
> > > and up to date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios
> > > to
> > > one language only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems
> > > most
> > > appropriate for that particular deep scenario.
> >
> > If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the
> > bindings,
> > then one language doing a deep example and others doing more
> > general
> > examples should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy
> > to
> > understand for someone not familiar with it to follow.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Language example apps...
Posted by Mary Hinton <m....@nc.rr.com>.
Thanks Henry,
I asked my question wrong.
I was really wondering if anyone was working on a set of C++ tests, similar to the Python tests.
Thanks,
Mary
-----Original Message-----
From: William Henry [mailto:whenry@redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 12:51 PM
To: proton@qpid.apache.org
Cc: dpierce@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Language example apps...
Hi Mary,
It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work because the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton C API under the covers.
That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure this is true.
Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples (?). i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton enabled C++ API? Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton addressing with the more complex previous addressing that allowed us to build exchanges and queues?
William
----- Original Message -----
> > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 if
> > we do something with C++).
>
> Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone
> currently working on creating C++ examples?
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Language example apps...
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
> <dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for
> > > Proton across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> > >
> > > C Python Ruby Perl
> > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > >
> >
> > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
>
> Yeah, sorry to forget that.
>
> > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack of
> > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show very
> > > simple point-to-point messaging.
> > >
> > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing that
> > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> > >
> > > Ideas?
> > >
> >
> > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> >
> > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really be
> > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth having
> > non messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as
> > those kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining
> > duplicate examples involves some significant maintenance effort. I
> > would rather see a very well maintained/structured C example for the
> > non messenger stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't
> > bother exposing the non messenger APIs through the bindings at all,
> > with the exception of python for testing purposes of course. To be
> > clear I'm not opposed to exposing them, I just don't think there is
> > any demand at this point and I think it just creates unnecessary
> > work until there is.
> >
> > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6 if
> > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a
> > basic, well thought out, but simple messenger based example geared
> > towards getting people started, and strive to keep that consistent
> > and up to date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to
> > one language only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems most
> > appropriate for that particular deep scenario.
>
> If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the bindings,
> then one language doing a deep example and others doing more general
> examples should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to
> understand for someone not familiar with it to follow.
>
> --
> 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: Language example apps...
Posted by William Henry <wh...@redhat.com>.
? I don't think anyone is suggesting it wouldn't be appropriate.
Were my semantics such that I added some confusion?
William
----- Original Message -----
> Why would examples in every normative language not be appropriate?
> Synchronization may be an issue, but wouldn't examples be easily
> synchronized with language-specific API updates?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM, William Henry <wh...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mary,
> >
> > It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work
> > because
> > the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton C API
> > under
> > the covers.
> >
> > That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure
> > this is
> > true.
> >
> > Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples
> > (?).
> > i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton enabled
> > C++ API?
> > Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton addressing with the
> > more
> > complex previous addressing that allowed us to build exchanges and
> > queues?
> >
> > William
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages
> > > > (6
> > > > if
> > > > we do something with C++).
> > >
> > > Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone
> > > currently
> > > working on creating C++ examples?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
> > > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Language example apps...
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
> > > <dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for
> > > > > Proton
> > > > > across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > C Python Ruby Perl
> > > > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > > > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > > > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
> > >
> > > Yeah, sorry to forget that.
> > >
> > > > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite
> > > > lack of
> > > > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > > > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show
> > > > > very
> > > > > simple point-to-point messaging.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing
> > > > > that
> > > > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ideas?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> > > >
> > > > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should
> > > > really
> > > > be
> > > > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth
> > > > having
> > > > non
> > > > messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as
> > > > those
> > > > kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining
> > > > duplicate
> > > > examples involves some significant maintenance effort. I would
> > > > rather
> > > > see a very well maintained/structured C example for the non
> > > > messenger
> > > > stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't bother
> > > > exposing
> > > > the non messenger APIs through the bindings at all, with the
> > > > exception
> > > > of python for testing purposes of course. To be clear I'm not
> > > > opposed
> > > > to exposing them, I just don't think there is any demand at
> > > > this
> > > > point
> > > > and I think it just creates unnecessary work until there is.
> > > >
> > > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages
> > > > (6
> > > > if
> > > > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a
> > > > basic,
> > > > well thought out, but simple messenger based example geared
> > > > towards
> > > > getting people started, and strive to keep that consistent and
> > > > up
> > > > to
> > > > date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to one
> > > > language
> > > > only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems most
> > > > appropriate
> > > > for that particular deep scenario.
> > >
> > > If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the
> > > bindings,
> > > then
> > > one language doing a deep example and others doing more general
> > > examples
> > > should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to
> > > understand for
> > > someone not familiar with it to follow.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph B. Ottinger
> http://enigmastation.com
> *Memento mori.*
>
Re: Language example apps...
Posted by Joseph Ottinger <jo...@enigmastation.com>.
Why would examples in every normative language not be appropriate?
Synchronization may be an issue, but wouldn't examples be easily
synchronized with language-specific API updates?
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM, William Henry <wh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Mary,
>
> It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work because
> the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton C API under
> the covers.
>
> That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure this is
> true.
>
> Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples (?).
> i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton enabled C++ API?
> Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton addressing with the more
> complex previous addressing that allowed us to build exchanges and queues?
>
> William
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > > if
> > > we do something with C++).
> >
> > Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone
> > currently
> > working on creating C++ examples?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mary
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
> > To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Language example apps...
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
> > <dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for
> > > > Proton
> > > > across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> > > >
> > > > C Python Ruby Perl
> > > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > > >
> > >
> > > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
> >
> > Yeah, sorry to forget that.
> >
> > > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack of
> > > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show very
> > > > simple point-to-point messaging.
> > > >
> > > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing
> > > > that
> > > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> > > >
> > > > Ideas?
> > > >
> > >
> > > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> > >
> > > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really
> > > be
> > > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth having
> > > non
> > > messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as those
> > > kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining duplicate
> > > examples involves some significant maintenance effort. I would
> > > rather
> > > see a very well maintained/structured C example for the non
> > > messenger
> > > stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't bother exposing
> > > the non messenger APIs through the bindings at all, with the
> > > exception
> > > of python for testing purposes of course. To be clear I'm not
> > > opposed
> > > to exposing them, I just don't think there is any demand at this
> > > point
> > > and I think it just creates unnecessary work until there is.
> > >
> > > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > > if
> > > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a
> > > basic,
> > > well thought out, but simple messenger based example geared towards
> > > getting people started, and strive to keep that consistent and up
> > > to
> > > date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to one
> > > language
> > > only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems most appropriate
> > > for that particular deep scenario.
> >
> > If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the bindings,
> > then
> > one language doing a deep example and others doing more general
> > examples
> > should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to
> > understand for
> > someone not familiar with it to follow.
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Joseph B. Ottinger
http://enigmastation.com
*Memento mori.*
Re: Language example apps...
Posted by William Henry <wh...@redhat.com>.
Hi Mary,
It is my understanding that the existing C++ examples should work because the proton based C++ API the Qpid proper API with the proton C API under the covers.
That said, I'm not sure what testing has been done to make sure this is true.
Also it would seem that perhaps there might be two sets of examples (?). i.e. What happens to old style addresses in the new proton enabled C++ API? Do the still just work? Can I mix simple proton addressing with the more complex previous addressing that allowed us to build exchanges and queues?
William
----- Original Message -----
> > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > if
> > we do something with C++).
>
> Above you mentioned the possibility of C++ examples. Is anyone
> currently
> working on creating C++ examples?
>
> Thanks,
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darryl L. Pierce [mailto:dpierce@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:05 PM
> To: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Language example apps...
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:36:34PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Darryl L. Pierce
> <dp...@redhat.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Last week Justin asked me to take a look at the examples for
> > > Proton
> > > across language bindings. What I found are the following:
> > >
> > > C Python Ruby Perl
> > > Mailbox (Raw API) [ ] [X] [X] [ ]
> > > Send/Receive (Messenger classes) [ ] [X] [X] [X]
> > > Send/Receive (Non-Messenger) [X] [ ] [ ] [ ]
> > >
> >
> > We also have a PHP binding and it has some examples also.
>
> Yeah, sorry to forget that.
>
> > What came out of the discussion was that there's a definite lack of
> > > depth with the examples. The Mailbox demo is a nice, specific
> > > example of stored messaging. The Send/Receive examples show very
> > > simple point-to-point messaging.
> > >
> > > But what else should be included in examples? The first thing
> > > that
> > > comes to mind is an example demonstrating subscriptions.
> > >
> > > Ideas?
> > >
> >
> > A couple of random thoughts off the top of my head...
> >
> > I think the focus for the dynamic language bindings should really
> > be
> > messenger based examples. I would say it's really not worth having
> > non
> > messenger examples for the dynamic languages, particularly as those
> > kinds of examples are much more involved and maintaining duplicate
> > examples involves some significant maintenance effort. I would
> > rather
> > see a very well maintained/structured C example for the non
> > messenger
> > stuff. In fact I'd go so far as to say we shouldn't bother exposing
> > the non messenger APIs through the bindings at all, with the
> > exception
> > of python for testing purposes of course. To be clear I'm not
> > opposed
> > to exposing them, I just don't think there is any demand at this
> > point
> > and I think it just creates unnecessary work until there is.
> >
> > In terms of depth, I'm concerned that deep examples will be
> > difficult/impossible to maintain well in 5 different languages (6
> > if
> > we do something with C++). What I'd suggest we start with is a
> > basic,
> > well thought out, but simple messenger based example geared towards
> > getting people started, and strive to keep that consistent and up
> > to
> > date across all the bindings. I'd keep deep scenarios to one
> > language
> > only (at least at first), choosing whichever seems most appropriate
> > for that particular deep scenario.
>
> If we keep the languages as consist as possible across the bindings,
> then
> one language doing a deep example and others doing more general
> examples
> should be workable. Assuming the one language is as easy to
> understand for
> someone not familiar with it to follow.
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
>
>