----- "Rafael Schloming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I kind of agree but following this reasoning this would mean that we > need a standalone jar for the jms client. > > I'm not sure I follow. We *do* have a standalone jar for the jms > client. > Or we did before the management stuff was put under client. > > --Rafael
What I mean that not all applications may use JMS as this a layer on top of AMQP. So if we follow your reasoning we should have a jar for the AMQP client and a jar for the JMS implementation. Arnaud
