Arnaud Simon wrote:
----- "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.
I agree, with the one caveat that I don't think it's a good idea to
consider protocol level APIs public until AMQP 1.0 is released.
--Rafael
