Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 33388 invoked by uid 500); 11 Aug 2003 04:33:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 33373 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2003 04:33:21 -0000 Received: from adsl-209-233-18-245.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO public.coredevelopers.net) (209.233.18.245) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2003 04:33:21 -0000 Received: from slip-32-101-149-232.fl.us.prserv.net (slip-32-101-149-232.fl.us.prserv.net [32.101.149.232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by public.coredevelopers.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 8.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id 72BB1B668 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:27:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: OpenJMS and EJB MDBs From: Hiram Chirino To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1060576366.23471.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.0 Date: 11 Aug 2003 00:32:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 11:40, James Strachan wrote: > AFAIK OpenJms is the most suitable JMS implementation today which has a > suitable licence for Geronimo. If another JMS implementation were to > come along, or folks fancied hacking another one together cool - but > until then I don't see another option for the foreseeable future. > I agree. I think OpenJMS is great implementation that we need to leverage to get a full J2EE stack in Geronimo sooner rather then later. The question I have is, will Geronimo be able to run against the TCK with it using OpenJMS?? > > > On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 03:42 pm, N. Alex Rupp wrote: > > > I believe David Jencks and Hiram Chirino would have more to say about > > this. > > Hiram's a bit preoccupied this week (moving). > > I'm almost done moving! :) > > James, what do you know about the JMS plans? > > > > : ) > > -- > > N. Alex Rupp (norm@coredevelopers.net) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:27 AM > > Subject: Re: OpenJMS and EJB MDBs > > > > > >>> Is OpenJMS primary JMS implementation for Geronimo? > >> > >> Presuming this decision has not already been made, what are the > >> options > > for JMS in Geronimo ? > >> > >> A) Use/Fork OpenJMS ? > >> > >> B) Implement a new stand-alone JMS provider ? > >> > >> C) Implement a new JMS provider using services from Geronimo > > (persistence, trans, etc) ? > >> > >> IMHO Options A and C seems like the best ones! > >> I like to start with A) because doing B) will force the JMS provider to duplicate much of the persistence/remoting/transaction work that would be available if we waited for C). Regards, Hiram > >> > > > > > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ -- /************************** * Hiram Chirino * Partner * Core Developers Network **************************/