incubator-wadi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <bdud...@mac.com>
Subject Re: [wadi-dev] activemq4 & activecluster
Date Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:08:55 GMT
Hi Jules,

I have AMQ and M2 playing ball locally. There is the problem with the  
RAR plugin that keeps them from going to M2 (search the wadi-dev  
archive for more info).

I am a fair bit along the path of getting ported over to AMQ4 -  
problems with old code going away and no obvious migration path are  
coming up but should be easy to figure out and fix. API changes have  
been accommodated but getting exceptions while testing...

I'll send out another status update today or tomorrow after I've got  
some progress to report.

TTFN,

-bd-

On Dec 19, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Jules Gosnell wrote:

> On the subject of AMQ4...
>
> AMQ is an issue that we have to crack.
>
> We can either go forward to AMQ4 and hope that this resolves all  
> issues, or we can get 3.2.1 fixed or fix it ourselves.
>
> I would rather go forward to AMQ4 (as I am sure that the AMQ team  
> would), since any work on 3.2.1 will ultimately be thrown away.
>
> So, I guess we should seriously consider getting involved in making  
> AMQ4 and Maven2 play ball with WADI.
>
> How much work do you estimate might be needed to get us all working  
> happily together ?
>
> Do you think it could be reduced to a patch for AMQ Jira ?
>
>
> Jules
>
>
>
>
> Jules Gosnell wrote:
>
>> Bill Dudney wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jules,
>>>
>>> Now that you are back online after AapcheCon I'd like to open  
>>> the  discussion of how we are using activecluster and their  
>>> recent change  from being Destination based to String based in  
>>> their api.
>>>
>>> After spending some time looking at it I think we could fairly  
>>> easily  go either way (String or Destination).
>>
>>
>> Going forward to String involves a lot of annoying code changes  
>> being made in WADI. It sacrifices type safety. Just because  
>> something is a String does not make it a valid Destination. I got  
>> the impression that they were going to roll back this change,
>>
>> In conclusion then, we sit tight on our current version of AC and  
>> wait for them to decide on their direction - i.e. make another  
>> release. If, in the interim, we need to make another release, we  
>> will continue down our current route - i.e. sticking with the  
>> strictly typed Destination.
>>
>> Does that clear matters up ?
>>
>> Jules
>>
>>> The AC api makes the changes  fairly straightfoward for us and  
>>> there were only a few places that  really need a Destination  
>>> (i.e. setting the call to setJMSReplyTo on  Message requires a  
>>> Destination).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> -bd-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> "Open Source is a self-assembling organism. You dangle a piece of
> string into a super-saturated solution and a whole operating-system
> crystallises out around it."
>
> /**********************************
> * Jules Gosnell
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network (Europe)
> *
> *    www.coredevelopers.net
> *
> * Open Source Training & Support.
> **********************************/
>


Mime
View raw message