David Blevins wrote: > > Right, exactly. Was just going to post that. That prefix works just > fine. Or even just "amq4factory" and "amq5factory" or something. >
Just as a side note, i would like to keep things working between previous version and the next one. With that said openejb:broker should still work (IMHO). We can make default to amq5 as proposed by Andy. David Blevins wrote: > > Anyway, on the openejb-legacy concept, let's go with a tight and > focused openejb-activemq4 module. I've done the bucket "legacy" thing > before and doesn't play out well over years. Ends up a "junk drawer" > that no one ever cleans out. > I started refactoring some small things around activemq to see how it works. We already have a module openejb-activemq to start a server. Don't know if it's still relevant. I had in mind something like: - openejb-activemq --> lastest activemq integration - openejb-activemq4 --> oldest version So IMO, the broker factory should go to those modules and disappear from the core. Jean-Louis -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Re-OpenEJB-3-1-2-maven-build-broken-due-to-ActiveMQ-dependency-tp1015106p1310711.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
