On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 11:40, James Strachan wrote: > AFAIK OpenJms is the most suitable JMS implementation today which has a > suitable licence for Geronimo. If another JMS implementation were to > come along, or folks fancied hacking another one together cool - but > until then I don't see another option for the foreseeable future. >
I agree. I think OpenJMS is great implementation that we need to leverage to get a full J2EE stack in Geronimo sooner rather then later. The question I have is, will Geronimo be able to run against the TCK with it using OpenJMS?? > > > On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 03:42 pm, N. Alex Rupp wrote: > > > I believe David Jencks and Hiram Chirino would have more to say about > > this. > > Hiram's a bit preoccupied this week (moving). > > I'm almost done moving! :) > > James, what do you know about the JMS plans? > > > > : ) > > -- > > N. Alex Rupp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:27 AM > > Subject: Re: OpenJMS and EJB MDBs > > > > > >>> Is OpenJMS primary JMS implementation for Geronimo? > >> > >> Presuming this decision has not already been made, what are the > >> options > > for JMS in Geronimo ? > >> > >> A) Use/Fork OpenJMS ? > >> > >> B) Implement a new stand-alone JMS provider ? > >> > >> C) Implement a new JMS provider using services from Geronimo > > (persistence, trans, etc) ? > >> > >> IMHO Options A and C seems like the best ones! > >> I like to start with A) because doing B) will force the JMS provider to duplicate much of the persistence/remoting/transaction work that would be available if we waited for C). Regards, Hiram > >> > > > > > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ -- /************************** * Hiram Chirino * Partner * Core Developers Network **************************/
