Hi.
I'm currently looking at the 0-10 transport layer in more detail, and
want to add a (currently) MINA based VM mechanism to the existing
socket based one, and eventually I envisage pluggable OSGi modules
that implement Netty or Grizzly transports for both the client and the
broker, using any
On 08/20/2010 05:45 AM, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
Hi.
I'm currently looking at the 0-10 transport layer in more detail, and
want to add a (currently) MINA based VM mechanism to the existing
socket based one, and eventually I envisage pluggable OSGi modules
that implement Netty or Grizzly transports
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This discussing needs to be had a bit more broadly so that all involved in
the client can contribute
Let me read through and comment on the individual JIRA's and then
maybe I can post a summary of my views here.
Rajith
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This discussing needs to be
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
First of all, I appreciate that there are several JIRA's opened
identifying the areas that Andrew is hoping to work.
I have gone through the JIRA's and made some comments.
In general I am quite happy about getting the transport code sorted out.
As mentioned in QPID-2811, I have made some
On 20 August 2010 16:16, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see the following in any future work carried out in the area.
1. Move the additional transport code out of common module. This is a
very important requirement for me as I would like to get rid of the
MINA
Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloff cctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the transports. This is needed. How does
that relate to this?
This
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Kennedy
andrewinternatio...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2010 16:16, Rajith Attapattu rajit...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see the following in any future work carried out in the area.
1. Move the additional transport code out of common module.
Also,
I should point out that the JIRA that mentions OSGi is purely in a
'Nice to have' category, and isn't something I expect to be working on
at any time in the near future... The important part of this is
consolidating and improving the transport layer. I expect that the
ability to add an OSGi
On 08/20/2010 11:04 AM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 08/20/2010 10:15 AM, Robert Godfrey wrote:
On 20 August 2010 15:48, Carl Trieloffcctriel...@redhat.com wrote:
I still think it needs debate,
For example, the discussion has been put forward to add in the new API
model in Java between JMS and the
12 matches
Mail list logo
