Looking at the WCF specifications, I think there is a lot of value in doing a WCF -> AMQP-midlevel - > Framing implementation.
WCF has a lot of nice toys that C# developers will want to use. They'll not be going near a JMS style API if they can help it at all. Looking at WCF, the more important thing is to make sure we have a good end-to-end experience from XML or binary XML between Java/C# using Qpid drivers. John On 01/06/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Legal issues are troublesome for end users; it's the end users who get told to cease and desist! Also, I +1 Rob on the WCF front; it's WCF that Windows users will be using. They won't care about JMS at all. NMS only exists because JMS has no wire level transport.... It would be a mistake to say Spring are the same project on Java and .NET; We should target WCF as our user visible API on .NET. There will be WCF drivers for all major middleware products and 3rd party technologies will be plugging into WCF - not NMS. How we implement WCF then matters less; but NMS is unlikely to be the optimal way. Cheers John On 01/06/07, Arnaud Simon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:46 +0100, Robert Greig wrote: > > On 01/06/07, Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > As I said, we would not define the NMS API as we do not change the > JMS > > > API. We would only implement it. > > > > But we do currently extend JMS, through the use of eg > > org.apache.qpid.jms.Session extends javax.jms.Session. > > We can extend it but the API itself is not changed. > > > > I don think that implementing NMS would impact upon interop. An I > agree > > > with you that having an API isn't enough but again I am suggesting > that > > > we define it but that we implement it. Moreover this code should not > > > even be hosted by our project but rather on the NMS Apache project. > > > > But to implement it we need a clear understanding of the precise > > semantics. If they are defined to be "exactly the same as JMS" (which > > itself is open to interpretation in a few areas!) then that is a start > > > I suppose notwithstanding the legal issues with that. > > I suppose that the NMS project would have to worry about legal issues. > > > Does WCF sit easily on top of NMS? If we have Qpid-specific extensions > > > can they be exposed elegantly with that model? > > I know a person that already has a WCF channel based on NMS. We would > therefor be able to reuse it without any change. We would also gain > being compatible with spring .Net. > > Again, I see a NMS implementation as a way of speeding up AMQP adoption > within the .Net community. We will have a WCF channel and a BizTalk > adapter, NMS is just an additional advantage for people that don't want > to deal with the cumbersome BizTalk. > > Arnaud > > >
