[rabbitmq-discuss] Unofficial guide to AMQP 1.0 PR3

Fri May 7 14:17:34 BST 2010

+1

Davorin

Just to clarify - my comments were under the assumption that you
wanted to run something in production some time soon.

I fully agree with Rafi that we welcome comments on 1-0, and questions
are good too.  If you read the spec and do not understand something,
let us know.  That way it can be clarirfied.

alexis

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Rafael Schloming <rafaels at redhat.com> wrote:
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Davorin
>>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Davorin Rusevljan
>> <davorin.rusevljan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This of course raises the question should I invest my time in learning
>>> 0.8
>>> and products that use it, or try to jump the wagon of 1.0.
>>>
>>> What would you say, in what state is 1.0 specs is it about to be
>>> published
>>> soon, and what are the plans for RabbitMQ support for it?
>>
>> The easiest path is to learn 0-8 or 0-91 which is very similar and better.
>
> I would differ with this slightly. Obviously if you need a production
> quality solution immediately, then you need to evaluate what projects and/or
> vendors offer right now, however I don't know if diving into a specification
> targeted at implementors is the best way to do that. Most likely you'll need
> to decide based on what features you need and whether/how they are exposed
> by the various implementations.
>
> On the other hand if you're interest does lie in the specification, the 1-0
> document is specifically intended *not* to require any knowledge of prior
> versions to comprehend, and in some cases familiarity with older versions
> can even result in some confusion, although Michael's unofficial guide
> certainly helps with that.
>
> Either way, we could definitely use feedback from people who are reading the
> 1-0 version of the document with fresh eyes that are not weighed down by the
> baggage from earlier versions of the spec. So if you have a few hours to
> spare, any comments would be greatly appreciated, although due to the lack
> of production ready implementations, this may be as much for the benefit of
> the working group as it is for you in the short term.
>
> --Rafael
>
>