qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John O'Hara" <john.r.oh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [.Net] NMS
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:16:02 GMT
Legal issues are troublesome for end users; it's the end users who get told
to cease and desist!

Also, I +1 Rob on the WCF front; it's WCF that Windows users will be using.
They won't care about JMS at all.  NMS only exists because JMS has no wire
level transport....
It would be a mistake to say Spring are the same project on Java and .NET;

We should target WCF as our user visible API on .NET.  There will be WCF
drivers for all major middleware products and 3rd party technologies will be
plugging into WCF - not NMS.

How we implement WCF then matters less; but NMS is unlikely to be the
optimal way.


On 01/06/07, Arnaud Simon <asimon@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message