off the top of my head I know the following are scoped for 0-11. Support for JMS destinations. Message Selectors - all though there is implicit support for this in 0-10 by doing a consume in no-acquire mode and using client side selectors. Other than that I believe we have nailed the other issues - but a quick check will not hurt.
The official guide for AMQP-JMS Mapping is scoped for 0-11, and I expect by then we have full protocol level support for JMS. Rajith On 8/28/07, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Greig wrote: > > On 28/08/07, Matthias Radestock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Another option is to stick to the published 0-8 spec. Does Qpid > >> definitely require the modifications you have made to the spec? If yes, > >> is there perhaps a way to achieve the same functionality with > extensions > >> that do not break 0-8 interop? > > > > At least some of the changes were introduced for JMS compliance, i.e. > > when working on passing the TCK Rob and I realised that we simply > > could not get JMS compatibility without making some changes (e.g. > > adding methods). > > > > It would be useful to gather together the changes then I and others > > can try to recollect the precise reasoning behind them. Perhaps we > > could modify the approach if a more compatible one was possible or > > maybe RabbitMQ could adopt some of them in the interests of achieving > > JMS compatibility (or have you managed to do this with unmodified > > 0-8?). > > > > We did at least discuss most if not all of these changes on the AMQP > > list but at the time getting any changes accepted particularly when > > people mentioned the acronym "JMS" was very time consuming and > > draining. > > FWIW, I believe most if not all of these changes are in 0-10 in one form > or another. Of course gathering together the changes and verifying that > wouldn't be a bad idea. > > --Rafael > >
