You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com> on 2015/02/18 13:33:03 UTC
towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Hi all,
We are getting to the point of wanting to do an initial release of the
new AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which raises some items for discussion.
The quick summary of an email that got quite long is: How do we
version it? What do we name it? How do we handle the overlap with the
older AMQP 1.0 JMS client?
We have yet to begin publishing snapshots but this is something I
would like to do soon, once we have a better idea around some of these
items, so that people can test with it more easily before/between
releases.
At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
(sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
As mentioned, we already release the older AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which
raises some points for how we handle the overlap. We will obviously
continue to release it for some period, until we presumably drop back
to just having two JMS client again in form of the original 0-x client
and the new 1.0 client once it has matured a bit. Currently the older
1.0 client is released along with the other components in the 'java
tree', such as the Java broker and the AMQP 0-x JMS client. We have
spoken about reorganising the source tree after 0.32 to better
facilitate independent releases of components. I did wonder if this
would also be an opportunity to make the older 1.0 client released
independently from e.g the broker and 0-x client, as it could then be
released more on-demand rather than on-schedule as presently. On the
other hand, this might make the naming thing more confusing since it
wouldn't simply be part of the 'java release' any longer and would
stand alone just like the new client, in which case leaving it part of
the 'java release' may actually be the simpler option.
Thoughts?
Robbie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
Personally I'd probably release that client independently from the rest of
the java tree unless we happened to coincidentally want a patch release of
the rest of the Java tree at the same time.
Post 0.32 I think we are probably thinking of doing incremental patch
releases off the 0.32 branch for Java components if/when significant
defects come about (making 0.32 a sort of long term support version). From
trunk we'll be starting on the great directory re-org so that as previously
discussed, going forward we'll be doing independent releases between Java
and C++ at a minimum, and possibly at an even finer granularity.
-- Rob
On 25 February 2015 at 17:05, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That suggestion works for me in general. The only question would be
> around whether the other components in the 'java' tree alongside it
> currently would have to be released as well (the broker and other
> client would also be deployed curently by the parent 'java build'), or
> whether you would trim the client off out on its own?
>
> Robbie
>
> On 24 February 2015 at 15:24, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, I'm very much in favour of getting the new client released as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > In terms of the old "JMS AMQP 1.0 Client" I suggest that post 0.32 we put
> > this into maintenance mode only... and that as we move to our new
> > release/directory structure we remove the legacy AMQP 1.0 client and only
> > release maintenance updates based on the 0.32 branch (as 0.32.1, 0.32.2
> > etc).
> >
> > Does anyone object to this plan?
> >
> > -- Rob
> >
> > On 18 February 2015 at 13:33, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> We are getting to the point of wanting to do an initial release of the
> >> new AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which raises some items for discussion.
> >>
> >> The quick summary of an email that got quite long is: How do we
> >> version it? What do we name it? How do we handle the overlap with the
> >> older AMQP 1.0 JMS client?
> >>
> >>
> >> We have yet to begin publishing snapshots but this is something I
> >> would like to do soon, once we have a better idea around some of these
> >> items, so that people can test with it more easily before/between
> >> releases.
> >>
> >> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> >> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> >> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> >> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
> >> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
> >> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
> >> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
> >> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
> >> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
> >> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
> >> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
> >> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
> >> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
> >> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
> >>
> >> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> >> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> >> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> >> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> >> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> >> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> >> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> >> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> >> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> >> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> >> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
> >>
> >> As mentioned, we already release the older AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which
> >> raises some points for how we handle the overlap. We will obviously
> >> continue to release it for some period, until we presumably drop back
> >> to just having two JMS client again in form of the original 0-x client
> >> and the new 1.0 client once it has matured a bit. Currently the older
> >> 1.0 client is released along with the other components in the 'java
> >> tree', such as the Java broker and the AMQP 0-x JMS client. We have
> >> spoken about reorganising the source tree after 0.32 to better
> >> facilitate independent releases of components. I did wonder if this
> >> would also be an opportunity to make the older 1.0 client released
> >> independently from e.g the broker and 0-x client, as it could then be
> >> released more on-demand rather than on-schedule as presently. On the
> >> other hand, this might make the naming thing more confusing since it
> >> wouldn't simply be part of the 'java release' any longer and would
> >> stand alone just like the new client, in which case leaving it part of
> >> the 'java release' may actually be the simpler option.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
That suggestion works for me in general. The only question would be
around whether the other components in the 'java' tree alongside it
currently would have to be released as well (the broker and other
client would also be deployed curently by the parent 'java build'), or
whether you would trim the client off out on its own?
Robbie
On 24 February 2015 at 15:24, Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I'm very much in favour of getting the new client released as soon as
> possible.
>
> In terms of the old "JMS AMQP 1.0 Client" I suggest that post 0.32 we put
> this into maintenance mode only... and that as we move to our new
> release/directory structure we remove the legacy AMQP 1.0 client and only
> release maintenance updates based on the 0.32 branch (as 0.32.1, 0.32.2
> etc).
>
> Does anyone object to this plan?
>
> -- Rob
>
> On 18 February 2015 at 13:33, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We are getting to the point of wanting to do an initial release of the
>> new AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which raises some items for discussion.
>>
>> The quick summary of an email that got quite long is: How do we
>> version it? What do we name it? How do we handle the overlap with the
>> older AMQP 1.0 JMS client?
>>
>>
>> We have yet to begin publishing snapshots but this is something I
>> would like to do soon, once we have a better idea around some of these
>> items, so that people can test with it more easily before/between
>> releases.
>>
>> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
>> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
>> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
>> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
>> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
>> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
>> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
>> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
>> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
>> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
>> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
>> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
>> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
>> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>>
>> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
>> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
>> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
>> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
>> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
>> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>>
>> As mentioned, we already release the older AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which
>> raises some points for how we handle the overlap. We will obviously
>> continue to release it for some period, until we presumably drop back
>> to just having two JMS client again in form of the original 0-x client
>> and the new 1.0 client once it has matured a bit. Currently the older
>> 1.0 client is released along with the other components in the 'java
>> tree', such as the Java broker and the AMQP 0-x JMS client. We have
>> spoken about reorganising the source tree after 0.32 to better
>> facilitate independent releases of components. I did wonder if this
>> would also be an opportunity to make the older 1.0 client released
>> independently from e.g the broker and 0-x client, as it could then be
>> released more on-demand rather than on-schedule as presently. On the
>> other hand, this might make the naming thing more confusing since it
>> wouldn't simply be part of the 'java release' any longer and would
>> stand alone just like the new client, in which case leaving it part of
>> the 'java release' may actually be the simpler option.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Rob Godfrey <ro...@gmail.com>.
So, I'm very much in favour of getting the new client released as soon as
possible.
In terms of the old "JMS AMQP 1.0 Client" I suggest that post 0.32 we put
this into maintenance mode only... and that as we move to our new
release/directory structure we remove the legacy AMQP 1.0 client and only
release maintenance updates based on the 0.32 branch (as 0.32.1, 0.32.2
etc).
Does anyone object to this plan?
-- Rob
On 18 February 2015 at 13:33, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are getting to the point of wanting to do an initial release of the
> new AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which raises some items for discussion.
>
> The quick summary of an email that got quite long is: How do we
> version it? What do we name it? How do we handle the overlap with the
> older AMQP 1.0 JMS client?
>
>
> We have yet to begin publishing snapshots but this is something I
> would like to do soon, once we have a better idea around some of these
> items, so that people can test with it more easily before/between
> releases.
>
> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>
> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>
> As mentioned, we already release the older AMQP 1.0 JMS client, which
> raises some points for how we handle the overlap. We will obviously
> continue to release it for some period, until we presumably drop back
> to just having two JMS client again in form of the original 0-x client
> and the new 1.0 client once it has matured a bit. Currently the older
> 1.0 client is released along with the other components in the 'java
> tree', such as the Java broker and the AMQP 0-x JMS client. We have
> spoken about reorganising the source tree after 0.32 to better
> facilitate independent releases of components. I did wonder if this
> would also be an opportunity to make the older 1.0 client released
> independently from e.g the broker and 0-x client, as it could then be
> released more on-demand rather than on-schedule as presently. On the
> other hand, this might make the naming thing more confusing since it
> wouldn't simply be part of the 'java release' any longer and would
> stand alone just like the new client, in which case leaving it part of
> the 'java release' may actually be the simpler option.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Robbie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 18 February 2015 at 14:31, Richard Li <ri...@datawire.io> wrote:
>>
>> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
>> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
>> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
>> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
>> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
>> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>>
>
> Speaking as someone who is very new to Qpid (and knows nothing about the
> differences between the different JMS clients), I think it's essential that
> at the top level (i.e., qpid.apache.org) there is a cogent description of
> the different JMS clients, e.g.,
>
> Qpid JMS: an AMQP-fluent JMS implementation that supports AMQP 0.9,
> 0.9.1, and 1.0
> - NEWCLIENT_NAME: AMQP 1.0 JMS client, recommended for new projects,
> - qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client: AMQP 1.0 JMS client that's legacy? stable?
> - qpid-client: AMQP 0.9 JMS client
>
> In particular, explaining when you should use the new 1.0 client vs the old
> one is important -- otherwise, someone like myself will either have to post
> to the mailing list, or read a bunch of threads to try to figure out which
> one to use. In my opinion, the name, while important, won't convey
> sufficient information to make it obvious which a user should choose, and
> to me, that should be a goal of the front page of qpid.apache.org.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Richard
Making whatever we end up doing be clear on the website is certainly a goal :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Richard Li <ri...@datawire.io>.
>
> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>
Speaking as someone who is very new to Qpid (and knows nothing about the
differences between the different JMS clients), I think it's essential that
at the top level (i.e., qpid.apache.org) there is a cogent description of
the different JMS clients, e.g.,
Qpid JMS: an AMQP-fluent JMS implementation that supports AMQP 0.9,
0.9.1, and 1.0
- NEWCLIENT_NAME: AMQP 1.0 JMS client, recommended for new projects,
- qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client: AMQP 1.0 JMS client that's legacy? stable?
- qpid-client: AMQP 0.9 JMS client
In particular, explaining when you should use the new 1.0 client vs the old
one is important -- otherwise, someone like myself will either have to post
to the mailing list, or read a bunch of threads to try to figure out which
one to use. In my opinion, the name, while important, won't convey
sufficient information to make it obvious which a user should choose, and
to me, that should be a goal of the front page of qpid.apache.org.
Hope this helps.
Richard
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/19/2015 08:01 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>
>> Any more opinions out there on the name/version of the new client? If
>> not, I'll likely proceed to update the version to 0.1.0[-SNAPSHOT],
>> leave the module names as qpid-jms-foo, and begin working on setting
>> up a Jenkins job to publish snapshots to repository.apache.org later
>> today or tomorrow.
>>
>> Robbie
>>
>
> I like the idea of just letting the new client supplant the old one using
> the QPid JMS name. I'm pretty sure no matter what we called it there'd be
> confusion so I think its better to just try and do a good job of making
> things clear on the website and answer the question as they come up. Over
> time this should all work itself out.
+1
--Rafael
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Timothy Bish <ta...@gmail.com>.
On 02/19/2015 08:01 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> Any more opinions out there on the name/version of the new client? If
> not, I'll likely proceed to update the version to 0.1.0[-SNAPSHOT],
> leave the module names as qpid-jms-foo, and begin working on setting
> up a Jenkins job to publish snapshots to repository.apache.org later
> today or tomorrow.
>
> Robbie
I like the idea of just letting the new client supplant the old one
using the QPid JMS name. I'm pretty sure no matter what we called it
there'd be confusion so I think its better to just try and do a good job
of making things clear on the website and answer the question as they
come up. Over time this should all work itself out.
>
> On 18 February 2015 at 22:39, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemmell@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:41 AM
>>> To: users@qpid.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
>>>
>>> On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell
>>>> <ro...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
>>>>> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
>>>>> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
>>>>> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin
>>>>> implementing the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0
>>>>> for the client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I
>>>>> envisage us doing releases more frequently than our existing
>>>>> components have tended to and expect we will do small point releases
>>>>> eventually, so I think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from
>>>>> the start (or even
>>>>> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider
>>>>> adding alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend
>>>>> with the version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by
>>>>> crafting some horrible release versions (including the final
>>>>> versions), and I'm not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>>>>>
>>>> All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
>>>> strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1
>>>> gets the point across well enough.
>>>>
>>> Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
>>> Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want to do,
>>> but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
>> +1 to that.
>>
>>>>> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>>>>> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>>>>> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>>>>> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>>>>> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>>>>> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will
>>>>> differ from the previous clients, do people think this is enough
>>> difference?
>>>>> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what
>>>>> we do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component
>>>>> name to allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style
>>>>> Qpid Foo or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over
>>> here)?
>>>> I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
>>>> qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
>>>> JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to
>>>> direct users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>>>>
>>> Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely appropriate
>>> name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been able to think of
>>> anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of whether its a bit overloaded.
>>> I'm happy to leave it as it is if people think we can manage things going
>>> forward though.
>> I agree with Justin to position the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client as Qpid JMS, even at the risk of some short term confusion.
>>
>>>> Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the
>>>> word "prototype"?
>>> I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd possibly go
>>> with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite possibly leave it
>>> unchanged.
>> I think that leaving it as is is fine, and make the distinction on the web site, aiming to have just the Qpid JMS after a small number of releases.
>>
>>>> On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being
>>>> visible but not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra
>>> navigation.
>>>> The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the
>>>> featured offerings (especially the former).
>> +1
>>
>> -Steve
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Tim Bish
Sr Software Engineer | RedHat Inc.
tim.bish@redhat.com | www.redhat.com
skype: tabish121 | twitter: @tabish121
blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Any more opinions out there on the name/version of the new client? If
not, I'll likely proceed to update the version to 0.1.0[-SNAPSHOT],
leave the module names as qpid-jms-foo, and begin working on setting
up a Jenkins job to publish snapshots to repository.apache.org later
today or tomorrow.
Robbie
On 18 February 2015 at 22:39, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemmell@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:41 AM
>> To: users@qpid.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
>>
>> On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell
>> > <ro...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
>> >> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
>> >> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
>> >> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin
>> >> implementing the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0
>> >> for the client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I
>> >> envisage us doing releases more frequently than our existing
>> >> components have tended to and expect we will do small point releases
>> >> eventually, so I think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from
>> >> the start (or even
>> >> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider
>> >> adding alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend
>> >> with the version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by
>> >> crafting some horrible release versions (including the final
>> >> versions), and I'm not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>> >>
>> >
>> > All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
>> > strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1
>> > gets the point across well enough.
>> >
>>
>> Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
>> Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want to do,
>> but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
>
> +1 to that.
>
>> >> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>> >> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>> >> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>> >> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>> >> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>> >> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will
>> >> differ from the previous clients, do people think this is enough
>> difference?
>> >> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what
>> >> we do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component
>> >> name to allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style
>> >> Qpid Foo or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over
>> here)?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
>> > qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
>> > JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to
>> > direct users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>> >
>>
>> Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely appropriate
>> name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been able to think of
>> anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of whether its a bit overloaded.
>> I'm happy to leave it as it is if people think we can manage things going
>> forward though.
>
> I agree with Justin to position the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client as Qpid JMS, even at the risk of some short term confusion.
>
>> > Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the
>> > word "prototype"?
>>
>> I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd possibly go
>> with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite possibly leave it
>> unchanged.
>
> I think that leaving it as is is fine, and make the distinction on the web site, aiming to have just the Qpid JMS after a small number of releases.
>
>> > On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being
>> > visible but not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra
>> navigation.
>> > The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the
>> > featured offerings (especially the former).
>
> +1
>
> -Steve
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
RE: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:robbie.gemmell@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 10:41 AM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
>
> On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell
> > <ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> >> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> >> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> >> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin
> >> implementing the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0
> >> for the client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I
> >> envisage us doing releases more frequently than our existing
> >> components have tended to and expect we will do small point releases
> >> eventually, so I think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from
> >> the start (or even
> >> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider
> >> adding alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend
> >> with the version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by
> >> crafting some horrible release versions (including the final
> >> versions), and I'm not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
> >>
> >
> > All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
> > strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1
> > gets the point across well enough.
> >
>
> Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
> Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want to do,
> but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
+1 to that.
> >> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> >> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> >> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> >> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> >> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> >> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will
> >> differ from the previous clients, do people think this is enough
> difference?
> >> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what
> >> we do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component
> >> name to allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style
> >> Qpid Foo or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over
> here)?
> >>
> >
> > I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
> > qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
> > JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to
> > direct users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
> >
>
> Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely appropriate
> name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been able to think of
> anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of whether its a bit overloaded.
> I'm happy to leave it as it is if people think we can manage things going
> forward though.
I agree with Justin to position the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client as Qpid JMS, even at the risk of some short term confusion.
> > Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the
> > word "prototype"?
>
> I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd possibly go
> with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite possibly leave it
> unchanged.
I think that leaving it as is is fine, and make the distinction on the web site, aiming to have just the Qpid JMS after a small number of releases.
> > On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being
> > visible but not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra
> navigation.
> > The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the
> > featured offerings (especially the former).
+1
-Steve
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 18 February 2015 at 14:59, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
>> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
>> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
>> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
>> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
>> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
>> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
>> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
>> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
>> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
>> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
>> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
>> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
>> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>>
>
> All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
> strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1 gets
> the point across well enough.
>
Point taken. In that case 0.1.0 is what I would propose starting with.
Skipping back and forth between 2 and 3 digits isnt something I want
to do, but I do want to do point releases if appropriate.
>
>> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
>> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
>> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
>> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
>> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
>> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
>> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
>> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
>> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
>> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
>> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>>
>
> I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
> qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
> JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to direct
> users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>
Thats why we went with that originally, I think it is an entirely
appropriate name for what it is/will be, and I certainly havent been
able to think of anything that fits as nice. Its just a question of
whether its a bit overloaded. I'm happy to leave it as it is if people
think we can manage things going forward though.
> Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
> "prototype"?
I think its a few years late for that hehe. If we were renaming, I'd
possibly go with 'legacy' or something to that effect, but I'd quite
possibly leave it unchanged.
>
> On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being visible but
> not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra navigation.
> The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the featured
> offerings (especially the former).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Rajith Muditha Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1 on,
*. Calling the new JMS impl "Qpid JMS".
*. Encouraging new development to use this client.
*. Add a clear note explaining the current situation with our JMS clients.
*. Naming the " qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client" to include the word "prototype",
which is what it is at best.
Rajith
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> > 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> > (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> > the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
> > the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
> > client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
> > doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
> > tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
> > think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
> > 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
> > alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
> > version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
> > some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
> > not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
> >
>
> All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
> strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1 gets
> the point across well enough.
>
>
> > Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> > 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> > apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> > original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> > 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> > clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> > from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> > I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> > do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> > allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> > or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
> >
>
> I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
> qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
> JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to direct
> users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
>
> Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
> "prototype"?
>
> On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being visible but
> not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra navigation.
> The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the featured
> offerings (especially the former).
>
Re: towards releasing the new AMQP 1.0 JMS client
Posted by Justin Ross <ju...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> At the moment the version number is 0.1[-SNAPSHOT], to be followed by
> 0.2 etc until we think there is sufficient maturity to go 1.0
> (sidenote: not years :P). The initial focus has been on implementing
> the JMS 1.1 API for now so change will come once we begin implementing
> the JMS 2.0 API, which could also be when we bump to 2.0 for the
> client itself if we hadn't already for other reasons. I envisage us
> doing releases more frequently than our existing components have
> tended to and expect we will do small point releases eventually, so I
> think it probably makes sense to use 0.1.0 etc from the start (or even
> 0.0.1 to underscore its the initial release). We could consider adding
> alpha/beta etc status, however we would then have to contend with the
> version ordering disparities between e.g Maven and OSGi by crafting
> some horrible release versions (including the final versions), and I'm
> not much of a fan of publishing those to central.
>
All of this seems fine to me, except perhaps 0.0.1. That looks very
strange to me--like a patch update on a 0.0 release--and I think 0.1 gets
the point across well enough.
> Next up is the name. The new client has thus far been called simply
> 'Qpid JMS', with module names qpid-jms-foo, and binary tar
> apache-qpid-jms[-bin]. We already release two other JMS clients, the
> original AMQP 0-x one, module named qpid-client, and the older AMQP
> 1.0 one, module named qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client. Although the new
> clients name describes what it is, and the version numbers will differ
> from the previous clients, do people think this is enough difference?
> I think it is still going to be confusing for people no matter what we
> do here, but should we perhaps give the new client a component name to
> allow them more easily distinguished, i.e a name of the style Qpid Foo
> or Qpid FooJMS? If so, any ideas (failing spectacularly over here)?
>
I lean toward letting the new jms impl take the prime naming real estate:
qpid-jms, as you have it now. I haven't thought of a good name ("Qpid
JamSession"? kidding), and since this is really where we want to direct
users going forward, it deserves the mantle of "Qpid JMS".
Could we rename the qpid-amqp-1-0-jms-client artifact to include the word
"prototype"?
On the website, I see the previous AMQP 1.0 jms client as being visible but
not prominent, and perhaps only available through some extra navigation.
The new AMQP 1.0 client, and the 0-10-0-8 client, should be the featured
offerings (especially the former).