For testing I've been using the trial download of SonicMQ version 7. The legacy client code was written for version 6, so I guess its JMS 1.1 compliant. JNDI bindings refer to progress.message.jclient.QueueConnectionFactory so, from what your saying I take it I should just change those bindings to point to the ActiveMQ versions?
One further Q: At the moment this is just for testing purposes at my end, the legacy code I have is a validation suite against which the client I write has to be validated before access to the live system will be granted. If access is granted the live system will be running Sonic v6 at their end - do I simply go for a JMS to JMS bridge to connect? In short I'm trying to ascertain whether ActiveMQ will meet our needs or whether we'll need to fork out for a SonicMQ licence. I'm relatvely new to JMS so apologise if my questions reflect my lack of knowledge. Alan Adrian Co wrote: > > IMHO, it really depends on how the legacy code was written. > > If it was written using vanilla JMS, then it should be easy. Generally, > you just have to change where the administered objects (connection > factories, destinations) are created (usually from JNDI). > It its from JNDI, then you can just use the ActiveMQ version of it and > *hopefully* it should work. It also depends I guess if the SonicMQ > version you are using is JMS 1.1 compliant or not. > > admarrs wrote: >> I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers. >> >> I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use >> SonicMQ >> as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all >> predefined). >> Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS >> broker without the need to re-write the legacy code? >> > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-SonicMQ-with-ActiveMQ--tf3131373.html#a8686818 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
