activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ErinO <ErinOc...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: The future of the ActiveMQ C++ clients
Date Wed, 31 May 2006 23:48:29 GMT

Interesting, please pass along a snapshot. 

BTW, we are currently using Mat's CMS, and is trying to add failover
transport to it. If your work can be easily combined with Mat's CMS work,
that will be really cool.

Erin


Nathan Mittler wrote:
> 
> Hey guys,
> I've been working with a co-worker on a new c++ client that will replace
> CMS
> and will truly support a pluggable protocol.  We based much of the code
> off
> of the .NET client, but had to do some rearranging to get rid of protocol
> dependencies in the code.  We're nearing completion and have a full suite
> of
> CppUnit tests to go along with it.  The code base should be able to easily
> support the OpenWire protocol as well (something CMS would have had some
> heartburn with).
> 
> Up until now, Tim and I have just been working in secrecy off of our own
> svn
> repo, since he doesn't have commit access to AMQ.  But we should have
> things
> to a decent state fairly soon (a couple of weeks, perhaps).  The first
> pass
> will only have STOMP implemented, but I was hoping that once we get our
> stuff into Apache that you other guys (Mats?) might give us a hand
> plugging
> in a connector for OpenWire?
> 
> If anyone is interested, we can pass along a snapshot of our code base so
> you can take a peek.
> 
> Regards,
> Nate
> 
> On 5/30/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mats,
>>
>> Yep, it should be possible to do 2 way ssl with ActiveMQ..  Perhaps
>> the harder part will will finding a place to hold the client
>> authentication info acquired from SSL to the broker.  Perhaps we just
>> stuff stuff into the connection info, not sure.
>>
>> I think it would be nice if all clients supported that feature, but I
>> don't think it's a must have.
>>
>> As for the road map for the c++ clients, I'm hoping that things get
>> consolidated down to 2 main sets of interfaces.  1st is the JMS like
>> c++ API that supports all the features that the java client supports.
>> 2nd is a simpler api that's perhaps only implemented using the stomp
>> protocol.
>>
>> How we consolidate the APIs, I'm not sure.  I think the C++ guys
>> behind the different implementations are the ones that need to come to
>> the table and discuss that.  If they don't get consolidated, it might
>> not be a bad thing.  It gives users choice, and in the end they will
>> pick what suits them best.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> On 5/30/06, Mats Forslöf <Mats.Forslof@portwise.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > The openwire-cpp client is complete with one exception - the SSL part.
>> The reason for this is that we would like it to support two-way SSL and
>> before we starts to implement a two-way SSL socket we need to hear what
>> you
>> think about this regarding to the ActiveMQ server. Are there any problems
>> with the current design to implement this and is it feasible for ActiveMQ
>> to
>> support it in the next release (4.1)? Also, should all clients (C, C++,
>> .NET, Java) support this?
>> >
>> > How do we progress with the AMQ C++ clients. Do we have a roadmap or
>> any
>> plans regarding the AMQ C++ clients? How do you think we should progress
>> with the clients and into what? Should we merge the existing projects
>> (OpenWire, STOMP, ...) or should they coexist? It is probably a bit
>> confusing for the end users at the moment with several clients. I would
>> like
>> us to have a discussion on all this and more. Please, feel free to share
>> your thoughts on the issues above.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Mats Forslöf
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
> 
> 

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/The+future+of+the+ActiveMQ+C%2B%2B+clients-t1704829.html#a4653968
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev forum at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message