Re: [paho-dev] Contribution of MQTT Servers (Mosquitto and RSMB)

[Andy Piper <andypiperuk@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've added a discussion item to the agenda for tomorrow's call:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Paho/Project_Call_Minutes#Meetings

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andy Piper <andypiperuk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My 2c.
>
> There's a dormant discussion on this topic on the wiki -
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Paho/Repository - where I did propose having a
> .clients and .brokers set of parallel repositories. However we now
> have quite a number of client repositories so that may not make sense,
> unless we did a big restructure.
>
> Personally I think we can take two approaches:
> - brokers live inside Paho as the repository "for MQTT"
> or
> - top-level M2M family (which is where Ponte would also live) project
> for broker(s), mosquitto retains its name, and Paho could then remain
> a potentially multi-protocol client project (which is what it was
> pitched as). Having said that, the SCADA stuff is going into its own
> project AFAICT, so we may already have lost that discussion.
>
> Either way, I'm very excited about one or both brokers coming to the
> Eclipse M2M family, and at the prospect for the best of both to come
> together if appropriate!
>
> Andy
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Roger Light <roger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mike Milinkovich
>> <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2013 9:07 AM, Ian Craggs wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought that Roger had indicated that some other location had been
>>> discussed for Mosquitto
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger - Can you remind me what was discussed? Another alternative is to make
>>> Mosquitto a peer to Paho, under the still-being-discussed M2M top level
>>> project. To be honest, there is almost no difference between those two
>>> options from the perspective of the Eclipse Development Process.
>>
>> It was basically along the lines of inside or outside of Paho, and if
>> in Paho then how it would appear (separate component, sub project - is
>> there any difference between these or just different names for the
>> same thing?) as you said.
>>
>>> Top-level projects are intended to group communities of interest, and there is
>>> no need to be pedantic about their scope.
>>
>> I had kind of assumed this, but it's nice to have it confirmed.
>>
>>> I am assuming that you have no desire to take Mosquitto to the EclipseRT. If
>>> my assumption is incorrect, please chime in!
>>
>> I had wondered before if it should be part of the RT project, but that
>> was based on a flawed understanding of its scope.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roger
>> _______________________________________________
>> paho-dev mailing list
>> paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Piper | Farnborough, Hampshire (UK)
> blog: http://andypiper.co.uk   |   skype: andypiperuk
> twitter: @andypiper  |  images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andypiper



-- 
Andy Piper | Farnborough, Hampshire (UK)
blog: http://andypiper.co.uk   |   skype: andypiperuk
twitter: @andypiper  |  images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andypiper