qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arnaud Simon <asi...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [.Net] NMS
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:59:57 GMT
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Greig wrote:
> On 01/06/07, Arnaud Simon <asimon@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > As I said, we would not define the NMS API as we do not change the JMS
> > API. We would only implement it.
> 
> But we do currently extend JMS, through the use of eg
> org.apache.qpid.jms.Session extends javax.jms.Session.

We can extend it but the API itself is not changed. 

> > I don think that implementing NMS would impact upon interop. An I agree
> > with you that having an API isn't enough but again I am suggesting that
> > we define it but that we implement it. Moreover this code should not
> > even be hosted by our project but rather on the NMS Apache project.
> 
> But to implement it we need a clear understanding of the precise
> semantics. If they are defined to be "exactly the same as JMS" (which
> itself is open to interpretation in a few areas!) then that is a start
> I suppose notwithstanding the legal issues with that.

I suppose that the NMS project would have to worry about legal issues. 

> Does WCF sit easily on top of NMS? If we have Qpid-specific extensions
> can they be exposed elegantly with that model?

I know a person that already has a WCF channel based on NMS. We would
therefor be able to reuse it without any change. We would also gain
being compatible with spring .Net. 

Again, I see a NMS implementation as a way of speeding up AMQP adoption
within the .Net community. We will have a WCF channel and a BizTalk
adapter, NMS is just an additional advantage for people that don't want
to deal with the cumbersome BizTalk. 

Arnaud



Mime
View raw message