Ah yes, so I was mixing them up :) thx! On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, [gb2312] founder_chen wrote:
> Hi, > > Yeah, The JMS interface is for application programming > code, and the JCA is used to integrate a JMS provider > in to an application server. > > In the Book <<Addison Wesley - J2EE Connector > Architecture and Enterprise Application Integration>> > , Chapter 6.6.1: > "A JMS provider implements the JMS API for an > enterprise messaging system and provides access to the > services provided by the underlying message system. > Vendors who provide application servers also include a > JMS provider implementation as part of an application > server. Currently, a JMS provider is plugged in to an > application server in a vendor-specific manner. The > Connector architecture 2.0 version defines a standard > for plugging a JMS provider in to an application > server. This standard means that a JMS provider can be > treated > similarly to a resource adapter in terms of the > system-level contracts that are based on the Connector > architecture 2.0 version. However, a JMS provider will > have a JMS API as a client API for its underlying > enterprise > messaging system." > > So we can take a look at the JCA spec, and make sure > if there is already a definition for plugging a JMS > provider in the latest JCA spec(1.5) > > Sincerely, > founder_chen > > -----Original Email----- > Sender: Stefan Schuster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Time: 2003��9��2�� 19:10 > Recipient: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Who are working on the JMS integration > > The JMS Interface is what you are using > in th application code (createQueue....) > > The JCA is one possible interface to > use for integration in the app-server. > > JNDI is what you use to find the ConnectionFactory > etc. OpenJMS comes with its own JNDI provider. > To integrate it into geronimo, we would bind > the ConnectionFactory etc in our own JNDI namespace. > Then, when it is looked up by an application, > we use JCA to construct the requested > JMS provider. > > Hope that is correct and helped you understanding > the interfaces. If anything is wrong or unclear > please tell !! > > On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 12:51, Thies Edeling wrote: > > > Stefan Schuster wrote: > > > > > > >Maybe we should take a look at more JMS provider > > > implementations than just openJMS see what they > are > > > using as an interface to the j2ee server, so we > > > >can pick an interface that is supported by as > many > > > >providers as possible. > > > > > > But most message broker vendors provide > > > vendor-specific APIs, These APIs are specific to a > > > message broker product and require an in-depth > > > knowledge > > > of the message broker. Such requirements add to > the > > > complexity of building these vendor-specific > adapters > > > and also lock us using a particular vendor. > > > So I think it is hard to pick an interface that is > > > supported by as many providers as possible. > > > > If the message broker is JMS compliant it implements > the JMS API's. Or am > > I mixing up the JMS API's with API's for integration > ? > > > > reg, > > Thies > > > -- > Stefan > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > ���õ����ʺţ�����Ż�ͨ[�����侳�ĵ�Ӱ]�Ķ���������������������ͷ+�Ż�ͨ�������������� > http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/?http://cn.messenger.yahoo.com >
