activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: mini sites for NMS and CMS projects
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:45:39 GMT
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