2008/10/1 Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > ----- "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
I don't really want to open up the discussion about the low level API here again, but in 99% of cases any Java developer is going to want to use JMS so splitting off the JMS 'layer' so we have amqp-client.jar and amqp-jms-client.jar is IMO not really what we are after. The Java client should always be capable of talking JMS from the core client package. Martin -- Martin Ritchie
