activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Timothy Bish" <tab...@twcny.rr.com>
Subject RE: mini sites for NMS and CMS projects
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:50:52 GMT
Agreed, I think this might get a bit over complicated considering where we
are at the moment.  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: chirino@gmail.com [mailto:chirino@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hiram
> Chirino
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:46 PM
> To: dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mini sites for NMS and CMS projects
> Importance: High
> 
> yeah it might get a little overly complicated to split things out.
> Perhaps this is something we should worry about once more
> implementations start cropping up?
> 
> On 2/19/07, Nathan Mittler <nathan.mittler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we separate out the cms code from activemq-cpp, how would we go about
> > managing the dependency between activemq-cpp and cms?  As it stands
> right
> > now, the user just has to download a single archive that has all the
> code
> > (apart from standard packages like cppunit).  If we break it out, will
> the
> > user have to download and install cms before downloading and installing
> > activemq-cpp?
> >
> > Maybe there's a way that we can have automake checkout and build cms
> > automatically when building activemq-cpp?
> >
> > On 2/19/07, Mittler, Nathan <nathan.mittler@sensis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The APIs should definitely be implementation agnostic.
> > >
> > > The activemq-cpp implementation of CMS for Stomp, however, uses the
> > > ActiveMQ extensions, so it won't work with just any old stomp broker.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: James Strachan [mailto:james.strachan@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:55 PM
> > > > To: dev@activemq.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: mini sites for NMS and CMS projects
> > > >
> > > > On 2/19/07, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> > > > > Great point.  So should we try to keep these CMS/NMS spaces
> > > > > implementation agnostic?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah. e.g. NMS can (just about) talk to any pure Stomp
> > > > broker, ditto the CMS as well. So we should definitely try to
> > > > make NMS and CMS talk to any broker.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > > -------
> > > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
> 
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com


Mime
View raw message