|[paho-dev] Open Source Meeting Notes|
Agenda Item #1 - Mosquitto vs RSMB. How closely are the architectures, tooling, packaging, testing aligned?
The general consensus is that although Mosquitto and RSMB have similar API's, the code bases would be completely different. For example, IBM pointed out that RSMB is a supported IBM product and that some of the serviceability components built in would probably be very different from the Mosquitto code base. As expected, it was agreed that "merging" code bases would not be a desirable way forward.
Therefore consensus was around a scenario as we move forward to continue to work on the logistics of bringing Mosquitto into the Paho project as a "subproject" to get started. This would minimize the process overhead while still differentiating the server support from the clients within Paho. This approach would then provide a few options to bring in features or other contributions from RSMB as required.Mike suggested one approach, to go ahead and also bring in RSMB as open source within the same subproject but "park" the code base. That would require a bit more work and careful positioning, but would have the code approved throughthe IP process as we work to understand capabilities of RSMB that would be interesting to incorporate into Mosquitto.
In addition to the discussions around Mosquitto, Roger also brought up the fact that within Mosquitto there are MQTT client implementations as well, and would we end up with multiple 'C' client implementations. We agreed that for the time being, the additional clients would be brought in as well and the Paho team would either differentiate the clients based on the embedded target platform (deeply "embedded" clients vs. server side clients) or that the two code bases would merge over time.
Agenda Item #2 - Resources required.
At this point in time Roger does not know the full extent of the resources that would be required, so one of the next action items is to have a follow on call to discuss how the process would work. Once that is understood then we can make the next decision as to if the migration will continue, and if so what resources would be needed to help in the process.
Mike made another suggestion here that the sub-project could have co-leads allowing for example, Roger to focus on development and the co-lead to handle the Eclipse process work.
We will schedule a follow up call in three weeks. A notice will be distributed on the Paho mail list for interested parties to join.
One key decision that would be important in this scenario is whether the sub-project will maintain the Mosquitto name or not.
Agenda Item #3 - Laying out a plan for next steps and really getting something started.
Next steps include having a follow on call with Roger to clear up remaining questions and to understand how Mosquitto can be brought into Paho as a sub-project. The Mosquitto name could be moved to Eclipse with the code base, or it could be brought into Eclipse.org under a new name, with Mosquitto.org still be managed as a standalone site. More work may be needed here to understand the implications of both options for Roger and others interested in participating in the subproject.
Back to the top