[rabbitmq-discuss] RabbitMQ AMQP 0-9-1 spec branch

Sun May 16 06:12:09 BST 2010

and what prepears on the amqp 1.0 PR3 or later?

2010/5/16 Matthew Sackman <matthew at lshift.net>:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:28:35AM +0100, Chris Duncan wrote:
>> Up until now I have tested against the AMQP 0-9-1 spec RabbitMQ
>> branch as well as 0-8. What are the plans for the 0-9-1 branch? Is
>> there going to be a RabbitMQ 0-9-1 stable release? I don't see much
>> point in continuing to support something that is not going to be
>> included in a stable release.
>
> Our current plans (and note, these can change, and there are not
> firm estimates attached to these) are that the next major release will
> be the new persister, and the following major release will be the 0-9-1
> work. So yes, we are very much committed to the 0-9-1 branch which is
> receiving attention now. We are not quite sure just yet whether to
> attempt to do multi-protocol (i.e. support 0-8 and 0-9-1 in the same
> product) or just drop support for 0-8 all together.
>
> 0-9-1 is really a clarification of 0-8 and in nearly all cases where 0-8
> is more ambiguous than 0-9-1, we implement the semantics of 0-9-1.
> Therefore, the impact to client libraries to move to 0-9-1 should not be
> a huge amount of work - obviously all our client libraries will be 0-9-1
> ready, and it sounds like the Ruby client is as well (David - please do
> *not* drop support for 0-9-1!). There's also an arguement for saying
> that old, likely buggy, and unmaintained clients which are currently 0-8
> only will either die or be rewritten to support 0-9-1 - that is a good
> outcome.
>
> On the other hand, if you, as users of Rabbit and client libraries, are
> dependent on a 0-8 client, and moving to 0-9-1 is going to be a massive
> issue for you, please let us know - we don't want to cause problems for
> people, and certainly don't want to alienate users or the many many
> members of this community who have contributed their time, effort and
> coding prowess. That said, there is an attraction to forcing some of the
> client libraries to receive some attention - for example a number of our
> users run into issues because the particular client library they're
> using still doesn't support channel.flow. It would definitely be a good
> thing if moving to 0-9-1 and dropping support for 0-8 would cause those
> libraries to be fixed up, by more than just a change to the version in
> the protocol negotiation.
>
> As always, your comments and thoughts are very valuable to us.
>
> Matthew
>
> _______________________________________________
> rabbitmq-discuss mailing list
> rabbitmq-discuss at lists.rabbitmq.com
> http://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss
>