Mailing-List: contact users-help@servicemix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@servicemix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <24324434.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: ffrenchm <ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com>
To: users@servicemix.apache.org
Subject: Re: JBI JMS component and LW JMS component
In-Reply-To: <67a6ab030907021310mec91ccbtf5f2bbc9493df80f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <24269118.post@talk.nabble.com> <24273123.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <67a6ab030907021310mec91ccbtf5f2bbc9493df80f@mail.gmail.com>


Another question :) For the jms basic consumer endpoint and the jms soap
consumer you define a parameter to set the transaction type. In the case I
want XA transaction with this kind of endpoint what will be the resource
adapter used by this endpoint ? 

Thanks 


Gert Vanthienen wrote:
> 
> L.S.,
> 
> You're right, the lightweight components have been deprecated in favor
> of the full JBI-compliant components.  The servicemix-lwcontainer
> component is no longer supported in ServiceMix 4 and any new
> development is going into the servicemix-jms component, so I would
> definitely recommend you to start using that one.  A few versions ago,
> this component got a new set of consumer/provider endpoints (cfr.
> http://servicemix.apache.org/servicemix-jms-new-endpoints.html). A bit
> more work has been done for the latest release to even better support
> the different kinds of MEPs, transactional behavior and integration
> with SMX4/OSGi (cfr.
> http://servicemix.apache.org/servicemix-jms-200901.html)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 2009/6/30 ffrenchm <ffrench.mathilde@gmail.com>:
>>
>> After some research I discovered that LW components are deprecated.
>> Anyway I
>> try to check the differences between JBI JMS BC and LW JMS BC and I've
>> the
>> impression there are greats improvements in the JBI JMS BC considering
>> the
>> JMS exchange <-> JMS flow implementations. I would like to know if there
>> is
>> some release note which summarize these kind of changes ...
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> ffrenchm wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I discovered that there is two JMS BC (JBI and LW) and I'm not sure to
>>> understand the reasons of these two differents implementations from a
>>> JMS
>>> / JBI exchange point of view. Are these two implementations achieving
>>> the
>>> same goals ? Could you explain me the reasons of LW components ? Is that
>>> just a question of configuration and deployment ? Are the JBI components
>>> not enough ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/JBI-JMS-component-and-LW-JMS-component-tp24269118p24273123.html
>> Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -----
> ---
> Gert Vanthienen
> http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JBI-JMS-component-and-LW-JMS-component-tp24269118p24324434.html
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.