From axis-dev-return-18192-apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org Mon Jan 06 20:34:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-axis-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 22287 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2003 20:34:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list axis-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 22278 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 20:34:04 -0000 Subject: RE: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org Cc: "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Kevin.Bedell@sunlife.com Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 15:31:15 -0500 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on LN_SUNLIFE_G11/Servers/SunLife(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/06/2003 03:34:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N So out of the box Axis can't be used with any specific JMS implementations? This seems like it would impede adoption. If I have to build from source, does that mean using a nightly build? For many of us working in the stodgy, old financial services industry that means we won't be able to use it - using nightly build stuff in production is frowned on. As a user, I'd prefer that I could download and use something out of the box - assuming I have the third party jars I need already. For example, I've got weblogic here and am using Weblogic JMS for other apps. If there were a JMS adapter for weblogic, I'd prefer to use it out of the box and just make sure the weblogic JMS classes were on the classpath. Ideally, there would be 'stable builds' that would contain the classes I needed already compiled. Does that make sense? Glen Daniels To: "'axis-dev@xml.apache.org'" cc: (bcc: Kevin Bedell/Systems/USHO/SunLife) 01/06/2003 03:25 PM Subject: RE: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution Please respond to axis-dev Correct. Generic JMS stuff is OK to have in the JAR, but any vendor-specific stuff like Sonic/IBM/etc is not, at least as far as I'm concerned. Other opinions? --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaime Meritt [mailto:jmeritt@sonicsoftware.com] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 3:24 PM > To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org > Subject: RE: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution > > > Glen, > > Great, thanks a lot for the help. To get the SonicMQVendorAdapter to > build you will need the SonicMQ client jars available as > well. What is > the current policy on third party library dependencies? Does > the binary > distribution include all options or just the default packages? If it > includes all options, I can send you Sonic client libraries for build > purposes. If not, I am assuming the solution is to have users build > from the source distribution. > > Thanks, > Jaime > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Daniels [mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com] > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:14 PM > To: 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org' > Subject: RE: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution > > > Actually, I did (JRun's), and have no idea why it wasn't in there. > > I'll rebuild and repost, though, as beta2. We should get 1.1 up to > speed and out soon! > > --Glen > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:11 PM > > To: 'axis-dev@xml.apache.org' > > Subject: RE: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution > > > > > > Jaime, > > > > The release builds are built by the release manager (in > > 1.1beta1, that was Glen) and this person has to have all of > > the jar files around to get the right build thing to happen. > > > > My guess is that Glen did NOT have a JMS jar on his system > > when building 1.1. > > > > -- > > Tom Jordahl > > Macromedia Server Development > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaime Meritt [mailto:jmeritt@sonicsoftware.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:24 PM > > To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org > > Subject: JMS transport not in 1.1 binary distribution > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I just got an email from a user alerting me to the fact that the JMS > > transport classes are not included in the binary > distribution for the > > Axis 1.1 beta. It is however available in the source > > distribution. Can > > anyone shed some light on this? I would imagine that the > JMS classes > > were unavailable when the distribution was built. Who can > modify the > > build classpath? > > > > Thanks, > > Jaime > > --- > > Jaime Meritt > > Manager, Software Engineering > > Sonic Software Corporation > > 400 Technology Square > > Progress Software Suite > > Cambridge, MA 02139 > > Phone: 617-551-6613 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary , confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail message immediately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------