The idea of the technical workshop is to enable those who care about (or have their own reasons to want to progress) a given topic, to meet with the other in
the group who care/need to work on the same area. DTX is a good example where there are perhaps three or four people who, if given a day to discuss it in the same room, will be able to get the bulk of the work complete. Clearly there’s absolutely no reason
why people who don’t care / don’t need to care about a given topic would join in that particular conversation.
Obviously not everyone is going to have the same priorities, but if people think that the most important thing to work on is X then they should be volunteering
to lead the effort on X and persuading others to join them in the effort. In general it’s always been quite unproductive to collectively say “doing Y is the most important thing... somebody (else) should be working on Y”.
I think we all probably broadly agree on the top priorities for AMQP 1-0, but that doesn’t mean that people should be stopped from working on areas that are
important for *them* if the alternative is those people doing nothing.
Hopefully the workshop can also help us work out how we can be focusing the time that we do have to work on broader adoption goals to best utilize the time
and resources available to us.
-- Rob
From: amqp@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:amqp@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Alexis Richardson
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:04 AM
To: John O'Hara
Cc: am@iit.de; amqp@lists.oasis-open.org; shuston@riverace.com; angus telfer
Subject: Re: [amqp] [Reminder] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop
As I mentioned earlier, DTX is something that can and should be handled by 1-2 specialists. David's got longstanding experience of this pattern, as have some others on here. If those people are willing and able
to bring this to completion, so much the better.
I just don't think DTX is what the world has been waiting for, in an open, interoperable, business messaging spec. The initial users of AMQP 1.0 will have broader concerns, and those should guide how resources
are focussed.
From:
"John O'Hara" <john@rjohara.com>
To: arichardson@vmware.com, "angus telfer" <angus.telfer@inetco.com>
Cc: am@iit.de, amqp@lists.oasis-open.org, shuston@riverace.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:46:52 AM
Subject: Re: [amqp] [Reminder] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop
I'm just lurking on this thread, mainly, but hasn't David Ingham done most if not all the work for dtx, Microsoft really want it iirc. Is David on this discussion?
-------- Original message --------
Subject: Re: [amqp] [Reminder] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop
From: Alexis Richardson <arichardson@vmware.com>
To: Angus Telfer <angus.telfer@inetco.com>
CC: Andreas Mueller <am@iit.de>,amqp@lists.oasis-open.org,Steve Huston <shuston@riverace.com>
I appreciate that for some of you, DTX is what it's all about, but I don't think AMQP 1.0 needs DTX in order to get adoption.
1) Lack of explicit DTX in the spec has not prevented adoption of 0-9-1. Moreover if you look the middleware-type technologies that have emerged in the last 5 years and look like becoming the mainstream in the
next 5-10 years, none of them support DTX.
2) It is also not 100% clear to me how DTX can be done properly without a definition of broker semantics, but I'd be happy to be wrong about that.
Do you think that customers who see DTX as a must have will be among those who drive AMQP 1.0 to initial adoption and momentum creation?
From:
"Angus Telfer" <angus.telfer@inetco.com>
To: "Steve Huston" <shuston@riverace.com>
Cc: "Andreas Mueller" <am@iit.de>, amqp@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:47:39 PM
Subject: Re: [amqp] [Reminder] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop
We badly need DTX, broker behaviour, and JMS mapping (none of which INETCO has any experience in). I think these should be the focus as it would appear that with them alone, the list might already be stretching it.
For those of us who can't contribute in the above areas, perhaps we could do something in other areas. I'm keen on the C/C++ interface as a personal thing. Might also be of
some use wrt filters. Of course, if I can play some role in the more important topics, I'd also be willing.
On Mar-9-12, at 7:28 AM, Steve Huston wrote:
Oh, I certainly agree that there are critical areas to make progress on.
However, I’ve seen fewer than 10 people responding to the request for areas of interest. With so few people it’s going to be hard to make progress on more than
3-4 areas, I imagine.
I apologize for missing the call on Wednesday, but was there discussion of maybe doing at least preliminary work via web conference? It seems the travel preferences
are intersecting even less than the work-item preferences J
Sure, less is more but there is at least one topic which must be done because it is Book 6 of the spec, distributed transactions.
Right, I agree with Alexis that focusing is more likely to produce results over a short period of time.
Examples and Docs is proving popular (since new interested people will want that to get going). I had assumed that Examples and Docs were to be aimed at developers…
if so, the obvious follow-up is what API are we writing examples and docs for? Hence, my point to work on a C/C++ API.
Just my 2c on this subject ...
"Less is more". The intersection of what everyone wants is more likely to get done quickly, than a broad front of work. I think Examples & Docs is a biggy,
as is Conformance. Following that I would pick Broker model(s) and mapping(s).
From: "Rafael Schloming" <rafaels@redhat.com>
To: amqp@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2012 2:18:39 PM
Subject: Re: [amqp] [Reminder] Proposed AMQP Technical Workshop
From your list I'd have the following interests:
* Filters (and other registries/extensions)
* Federation / Global Addressing
* End-to-end security (Message Encryption/Authentication)
* Broker model / Management
* Generation of examples / technical documentation
I'm not sure if this qualifies as a sub topic of conformance testing or not, but I'd also be interested in continuing the interop testing from the connectathons and perhaps building out a more automated version of it based on the demo done at the NY F2F.
--Rafael
On 03/08/2012 09:05 AM, Godfrey, Robert X wrote:
Thanks to everybody who has responded publicly or to me directly.
In order to pull together a proposal for topics/dates/venue we really need responses from *everybody* who would potentially attend by the end of this week.
The Member Section Action Group has been discussing ways in which the AMQP community can work together to drive forward adoption of AMQP 1.0. One proposal
which we are looking to take forward is to hold a Technical Workshop for interested parties to discuss future technical work streams around the AMQP 1.0 Core Protocol.
The suggestion is to hold a five day offsite (location and date to be decided) where proposals can be discussed, and ownership assigned, in line with the objectives
that we have previously set ourselves for 2012. The topics to be covered, and daily schedule, will be agreed prior to the meeting so that parties who are interested only in a subset of the sessions can attend only those days which interest them.
In order to gauge interest and determine which topics should be covered, we would request that interested members respond to this e-mail within the next week
stating which work-streams they have interest in contributing to, and which dates/locations they could attend.
Potential topics for discussion include
* Filters (and other registries/extensions)
* Federation / Global Addressing
* Distributed transactions
* End-to-end security (Message Encryption/Authentication)
* Broker model / Management
* Mapping AMQP to OpenMama, MQTT, STOMP
* Generation of examples / technical documentation
Potential locations might be: US/Canada West Coast; US East Coast; UK - London or North England/Scotland; Continental Europe (Germany?) or suggestions from
anyone else willing to host
26th March - 20th March (may be difficult to achieve due to timescales)
30th April - 4th May (clashes with 1st May Holiday in some countries)
7th May - 11th May (clashes with 7th May Holiday in some countries)
You should highlight up to four themes (including potentially new suggestions of your own) that you definitely want to participate in, and separately up to
four sessions that you may participate in if they are running.
Attendees at will be expected to have done work beforehand to craft their proposals in a form which can be distributed. The outcomes of the sessions will be
presented to the member section after the completion of the Technical Workshop. Only work with sufficient interest, active contributors, and strong consensus amongst the participants will have the necessary momentum to succeed.
As a reminder - In order that we may quickly determine interest levels and scope for such a technical workshop, we request all interested parties let us know
of their availability, preferred topics and locations by 8th March.
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information,
viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
IIT Software GmbH
Fahrenheitstr. 1, D28359 Bremen, Germany
Tel: +49 421 2208-166, Fax: +49 421 2208-167
Amtsgericht Bremen, HRB 18624, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Andreas Mueller
Steuernummer: 71/572/04100, VAT: DE199945912
|