<font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">For the little I've read about 1.0 it's really weird that it's called with the same name. I mean, migrating systems working on 0-9-1 to 1.0 sounds nearly impossible given the differences in the protocol.</font><div>
<font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">That's a bit worrying to think that development on 0-9-1 might be halted in case of take off of 1.0, considering the effort you might have put on developing something to target the current version.<br>
</font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 18:43, Simon MacMullen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@rabbitmq.com">simon@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 24/01/12 14:56, cupdike wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What would be the best way to monitor RabbitMQ's plans regarding a 1.0<br>
adoption decision?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Probably to watch this list.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Also, why would RabbitMQ consider not supporting 1.0? �Is the thinking<br>
that it may not see industry adoption, or something else?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Well, obviously we'd like to support everything and have every feature. But we live in a world of limited resources.<br>
<br>
The thing is, it's such a big difference from 0-9-1 that I view it as a different protocol really, despite the name. In some ways it's more like a super-STOMP - giving you less connection with broker internals but being more focussed on interoperability.<br>
<br>
So yes, I'd like to support it, but I'd also like to support MQTT and SQS and something-cool-over-websockets (and resurrect our support for XMPP and 0MQ and SMTP, and improve our support for REST and STOMP and...).<br>
<br>
And it may not see much industry adoption, the way all those other things already have. And without wanting to complain too much, it is rather heavy and complicated, so to support it properly we'd be looking at *not* doing quite a lot of other stuff we want to.<br>
<br>
Of course, if AMQP 1.0 takes off substantially then that could well change things.<div class="im HOEnZb"><br>
<br>
Cheers, Simon<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Simon MacMullen<br>
RabbitMQ, VMware<br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.<u></u>rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.rabbitmq.com/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>