On 4/17/07, Alvaro Carrasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Its purely a case that the Stomp+JMS came later. We really could do > with revving Stomp to 1.0 or 1.1 to tidy up a few headers we'd used. > > I think the latest ActiveMQ should support the cleaner header names > from Stomp+JMS (if it doesn't we can fix it easily). Fair enough. Would it be a good idea to actually somehow embed StompConnect? That way we're not duplicating effort...
It might be - it'd certainly be less code to maintain; though the native Stomp support in ActiveMQ is at a lower level; so can be more efficient (e.g. not requiring a thread per session etc). -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
