Supporting other popular messaging protocols is good in general.
However, I think adding a similar protocol that is similar to the current
Pulsar protocol is confusing.
When you introduce a new protocol, you need to provide the client
implementations for this protocol.
The idea of protocol handl
Resurrecting this thread. Two points to make:
First, it's completely fine for Apache projects to add someone as a
committer to maintain a specific part of the tree, and I believe Pulsar has
already done this for the .NET driver. So if we agree in principle that a
protocol handler or other piece
Here are my two cents.
It is great to have more protocol handlers. I'd encourage people to
maintain the protocol handler themselves rather than pushing to the
upstream.
1. It is very hard for the community to maintain all protocol handlers
upstream and keep them updated. Similar situations happen
