On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:42 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Asankha C. Perera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Andreas > > > > I was wondering whether there is somewhere a specification or > documentation > > that gives a clear overview of what types of messages Synapse's JMS > > transport is supposed to accept and how it should process these messages. > > More precisely I'm looking for a document that contains requirements such > as > > "If the incoming message is a BytesMessage and has a 'Content-Type' > > property, then the transport ..." etc. Is there already something like > that? > > > > > > Sorry, there isn't much external documentation yet..except in my head > :-) > > .. however, I have been planning to update the JMS transport to handle > JTA > > transactions for sometime, and I also wanted to change the design to > support > > both JMS 1.0 and 1.1 in a better way. Some of the current issues we have > > came about as we came across a user who wanted JMS 1.0 support, at which > > point we updated the codebase to JMS 1.0 from what we had (i.e. 1.1). > > > > We also have plans to adhere to the proposed binding for SOAP over JMS > > specification< > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-axis-dev/200701.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > >. > > At the same time, we need to update our code to not use > setMessageListener() > > etc. which the newer JEE app servers (such as WebSphere) does not allow.. > > > > If not, are there people who are interested in helping to write this kind > > of specification? Note that I believe that the current behavior of the > JMS > > transport is not always appropriate. E.g. a BytesMessage with > Content-Type > > 'text/plain; charset=...' produces a binary wrapper, while I would expect > a > > text wrapper. Therefore the specs to be written would focus on the to-be > > situation rather than the as-is situation. > > > > I would certainly be very interested to keep working on the JMS transport > > and I believe that with your help and that of any others in the > community, > > we could really improve the current implementation to be much better > > > > asankha > > > > How about also something like an SCA compatibility mode so Synapse could > sit > in front of Tuscany/SCA JMS services? It would mainly be just setting some > header properties. I'm mostly a lurker on the Synapse list these days but i > could help from the SCA specification and Tuscany interop side of things. > > ...ant > Ant could you explain a bit more? Is this for transforming an incomming JMS message into the required SCA fromat? It's been a while since I read the JMS binding spec and can't remember off the top of my head whats actually required to do the transformation. -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
