You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com> on 2006/09/08 16:08:10 UTC
Re: Proposal for identifying the implementation language
Hi,
We currently have C and Java versions of AMQP broker and clients.
And also we have python and ruby clients.
It will be confusing if we keep discussing these things without identifying
it in the subject line.
This has disadvantages
a) We may end up reading the email half way through to figure out that this
is a 'C' implementation specific problem
b) Searching through archives might be messy if somebody wants to search on
a 'C' related topic and ends up getting Java and Python related emails in
the results.
So I have the following proposal to identify the impl language when talk
about something language specific
a) if it is generic stuff then no need to have a prefix
B) if it's something language specific then lets put a prefix
for ex " [java] Proposal for the persistant layer' or "[python] refactoring
the client"
So people know what we are talking about at first glance.
Regards,
Rajith
Re: Proposal for identifying the implementation language
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
+1
Alan Conway wrote:
> +1 to that. It's not a big problem now but it may become one as things
> heat up.
>
> We don't want to miss cross-language issuess so we shouldn't be hard on
> people or argue over whether messages should or shouldn't be tagged.
> Just add/remove tags in your own replies as appropriate, or even reply
> twice if a thread deserves to be split into general and specific
> components.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 10:08 -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We currently have C and Java versions of AMQP broker and clients.
>> And also we have python and ruby clients.
>>
>> It will be confusing if we keep discussing these things without identifying
>> it in the subject line.
>> This has disadvantages
>>
>> a) We may end up reading the email half way through to figure out that this
>> is a 'C' implementation specific problem
>>
>> b) Searching through archives might be messy if somebody wants to search on
>> a 'C' related topic and ends up getting Java and Python related emails in
>> the results.
>>
>> So I have the following proposal to identify the impl language when talk
>> about something language specific
>>
>> a) if it is generic stuff then no need to have a prefix
>>
>> B) if it's something language specific then lets put a prefix
>>
>> for ex " [java] Proposal for the persistant layer' or "[python] refactoring
>> the client"
>>
>> So people know what we are talking about at first glance.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rajith
>>
>
>
Re: Proposal for identifying the implementation language
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
+1 to that. It's not a big problem now but it may become one as things
heat up.
We don't want to miss cross-language issuess so we shouldn't be hard on
people or argue over whether messages should or shouldn't be tagged.
Just add/remove tags in your own replies as appropriate, or even reply
twice if a thread deserves to be split into general and specific
components.
Cheers,
Alan.
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 10:08 -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently have C and Java versions of AMQP broker and clients.
> And also we have python and ruby clients.
>
> It will be confusing if we keep discussing these things without identifying
> it in the subject line.
> This has disadvantages
>
> a) We may end up reading the email half way through to figure out that this
> is a 'C' implementation specific problem
>
> b) Searching through archives might be messy if somebody wants to search on
> a 'C' related topic and ends up getting Java and Python related emails in
> the results.
>
> So I have the following proposal to identify the impl language when talk
> about something language specific
>
> a) if it is generic stuff then no need to have a prefix
>
> B) if it's something language specific then lets put a prefix
>
> for ex " [java] Proposal for the persistant layer' or "[python] refactoring
> the client"
>
> So people know what we are talking about at first glance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajith