RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26]

2003-04-04 Thread Nathan Phelps
I question if A JMSServerInvocationHandler is even necessary (along with
the JMS Subsystem) if Bill exposes the callbacks via the AOP remoting
framework.  Frankly, I have the same thought about all the subsystems
as I know EJB for instance will also being using the AOP framework and
therefore the AOPServerInvocationHandler.  I know you guys have a JMX
subsystem which you have used to implement JMX remoting, but if you
decide to refactor that to use the AOP framework that subsystem wouldn't
be necessary either as far as I understand it. What I'm getting at is
that it is my understanding that the future of J2EE flavored services on
JBoss will be built on top of the AOP framework, and therefore AOP
remoting is going to be the only InvocationHandler used because it is
what gives us the modern interceptor stack.

Bill, am I correct?

Thanks,

Nathan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
Elrod
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
MAY 26]

Guess Jeff beat me to it ;)

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom
 Elrod
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:49 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
 MAY 26]
 
 
 Jeff made the fix last night and I have not looked at the 
 code yet (he still
 has it local while we are testing that and some other fixes 
 out).  However,
 my understanding from Jeff is that the invoker client passes 
 its locator to
 the invoker server if it wishes to receive callbacks.  The 
 invoker server
 will then use that for establishing the connection back to 
 the client to
 send notifications (callbacks).
 
 Given this, it will be pretty easy to make it so the calling 
 code can give
 the client invoker the locator to use for callbacks, which it 
 then gives the
 invoker server (and will use its own by default as is now).  
 I can put this
 in this weekend (if Jeff doesn't beat me to it).
 
 It sounds like there won't be enough time to include JMS as one of the
 invoker transport before the deadline.  However, I would personally be
 interested in working with you on it.  Depending on how soon 
 you will have
 time to start on it, might be wise to make a branch just for the JMS
 transport, until JB4DR1.
 
 -Tom
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
  Nathan Phelps
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:44 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  Did you guys end up doing it in such a way so that you can use one
  protocol one way and another protocol the other way like you had
  mentioned?
 
  Secondly, what is really going to be cool when we expose 
 this via AOP
  remoting...  Bill, what are your plans for that?
 
  Thanks,
 
  Nathan
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Jeff
  Haynie
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
  Jboss Remoting callbacks are in - I wil commit in the next day or so
  when tom and I finish testing.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Bill
  Burke
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:06 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  I'm ok with JMS.  I didn't think you could rewrite in such short of
  time. Especially with Remoting and AOP just now becoming stable.  I
  think this email thread is good because it will allow us to 
 determine
  whether or not we can release.  I still think there is enough
  functionality.
 
  Bill
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
   Nathan Phelps
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:48 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
  
   I agree that there is some great stuff in there already.  However,
   being that the AOP transaction, security, remoting, etc. was only
   recently released in its first iteration, and the fact that JBoss
   remoting doesn't yet support true callbacks (Jeff says it
  is coming)
   there is simply no way I can deliver the new JMS
  implementation BUILT
   ON TOP of these services by May 5th!  And I'm going to be out
   basically two weeks between now and then with customers as I know
   others will be as well.
  
   Since the whole point of the JMS rewrite is to take
  advantage of the
   core JBoss AOP services, I haven't really had that much
  time to do so
   since the services have only recently been released.  Therefore, I
   expect that a May 26th release will ONLY INCLUDE THE OLD JMS CODE
   which is currently in HEAD.  It is the only option with a May 5th
   deadline in my opinion.  If everyone

RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26]

2003-04-04 Thread Jeff Haynie
I think Bill and I need to come up with a generic enough AOP remoting
with callbacks (which we have a start of) and provide that as part of
the Invocation to interceptors so that the J2EE services can just use
that w/o having to know anything about the remoting parts.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Nathan Phelps
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
MAY 26]


I question if A JMSServerInvocationHandler is even necessary (along with
the JMS Subsystem) if Bill exposes the callbacks via the AOP remoting
framework.  Frankly, I have the same thought about all the subsystems
as I know EJB for instance will also being using the AOP framework and
therefore the AOPServerInvocationHandler.  I know you guys have a JMX
subsystem which you have used to implement JMX remoting, but if you
decide to refactor that to use the AOP framework that subsystem wouldn't
be necessary either as far as I understand it. What I'm getting at is
that it is my understanding that the future of J2EE flavored services on
JBoss will be built on top of the AOP framework, and therefore AOP
remoting is going to be the only InvocationHandler used because it is
what gives us the modern interceptor stack.

Bill, am I correct?

Thanks,

Nathan

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
Elrod
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
MAY 26]

Guess Jeff beat me to it ;)

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom

 Elrod
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:49 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline

 MAY 26]
 
 
 Jeff made the fix last night and I have not looked at the
 code yet (he still
 has it local while we are testing that and some other fixes 
 out).  However,
 my understanding from Jeff is that the invoker client passes 
 its locator to
 the invoker server if it wishes to receive callbacks.  The 
 invoker server
 will then use that for establishing the connection back to 
 the client to
 send notifications (callbacks).
 
 Given this, it will be pretty easy to make it so the calling
 code can give
 the client invoker the locator to use for callbacks, which it 
 then gives the
 invoker server (and will use its own by default as is now).  
 I can put this
 in this weekend (if Jeff doesn't beat me to it).
 
 It sounds like there won't be enough time to include JMS as one of the

 invoker transport before the deadline.  However, I would personally be

 interested in working with you on it.  Depending on how soon you will 
 have time to start on it, might be wise to make a branch just for the 
 JMS transport, until JB4DR1.
 
 -Tom
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
  Nathan Phelps
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:44 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  Did you guys end up doing it in such a way so that you can use one 
  protocol one way and another protocol the other way like you had 
  mentioned?
 
  Secondly, what is really going to be cool when we expose
 this via AOP
  remoting...  Bill, what are your plans for that?
 
  Thanks,
 
  Nathan
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  Jeff Haynie
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
  Jboss Remoting callbacks are in - I wil commit in the next day or so

  when tom and I finish testing.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  Bill Burke
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:06 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  I'm ok with JMS.  I didn't think you could rewrite in such short of 
  time. Especially with Remoting and AOP just now becoming stable.  I 
  think this email thread is good because it will allow us to
 determine
  whether or not we can release.  I still think there is enough 
  functionality.
 
  Bill
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of

   Nathan Phelps
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:48 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
  
   I agree that there is some great stuff in there already.  However,

   being that the AOP transaction, security, remoting, etc. was only 
   recently released in its first iteration, and the fact that JBoss 
   remoting doesn't yet support true callbacks (Jeff says it
  is coming)
   there is simply no way I can deliver the new JMS
  implementation BUILT
   ON TOP of these services by May

RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26]

2003-04-04 Thread Bill Burke


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Nathan Phelps
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:23 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
 MAY 26]


 I question if A JMSServerInvocationHandler is even necessary (along with
 the JMS Subsystem) if Bill exposes the callbacks via the AOP remoting
 framework.  Frankly, I have the same thought about all the subsystems
 as I know EJB for instance will also being using the AOP framework and
 therefore the AOPServerInvocationHandler.  I know you guys have a JMX
 subsystem which you have used to implement JMX remoting, but if you
 decide to refactor that to use the AOP framework that subsystem wouldn't
 be necessary either as far as I understand it. What I'm getting at is
 that it is my understanding that the future of J2EE flavored services on
 JBoss will be built on top of the AOP framework, and therefore AOP
 remoting is going to be the only InvocationHandler used because it is
 what gives us the modern interceptor stack.

 Bill, am I correct?


I'm not sure yet.  I hope JMX and AOP and everybody else could use the same
Invocation object and Interceptor interfaces, but JMX may have other
requirements that require its own Handler.  Iteration will allow us to
explore the possibilities.

 Thanks,

 Nathan

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
 Elrod
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:05 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
 MAY 26]

 Guess Jeff beat me to it ;)

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom
  Elrod
  Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:49 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
  MAY 26]
 
 
  Jeff made the fix last night and I have not looked at the
  code yet (he still
  has it local while we are testing that and some other fixes
  out).  However,
  my understanding from Jeff is that the invoker client passes
  its locator to
  the invoker server if it wishes to receive callbacks.  The
  invoker server
  will then use that for establishing the connection back to
  the client to
  send notifications (callbacks).
 
  Given this, it will be pretty easy to make it so the calling
  code can give
  the client invoker the locator to use for callbacks, which it
  then gives the
  invoker server (and will use its own by default as is now).
  I can put this
  in this weekend (if Jeff doesn't beat me to it).
 
  It sounds like there won't be enough time to include JMS as one of the
  invoker transport before the deadline.  However, I would personally be
  interested in working with you on it.  Depending on how soon
  you will have
  time to start on it, might be wise to make a branch just for the JMS
  transport, until JB4DR1.
 
  -Tom
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
   Nathan Phelps
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:44 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
   Did you guys end up doing it in such a way so that you can use one
   protocol one way and another protocol the other way like you had
   mentioned?
  
   Secondly, what is really going to be cool when we expose
  this via AOP
   remoting...  Bill, what are your plans for that?
  
   Thanks,
  
   Nathan
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Jeff
   Haynie
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
   Jboss Remoting callbacks are in - I wil commit in the next day or so
   when tom and I finish testing.
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Bill
   Burke
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:06 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
   I'm ok with JMS.  I didn't think you could rewrite in such short of
   time. Especially with Remoting and AOP just now becoming stable.  I
   think this email thread is good because it will allow us to
  determine
   whether or not we can release.  I still think there is enough
   functionality.
  
   Bill
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Nathan Phelps
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
   
   
   
I agree that there is some great stuff in there already.  However,
being that the AOP transaction, security, remoting, etc. was only
recently released in its first iteration, and the fact that JBoss
remoting doesn't yet support true callbacks (Jeff says it
   is coming)
there is simply no way

RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26]

2003-04-03 Thread Tom Elrod
Jeff made the fix last night and I have not looked at the code yet (he still
has it local while we are testing that and some other fixes out).  However,
my understanding from Jeff is that the invoker client passes its locator to
the invoker server if it wishes to receive callbacks.  The invoker server
will then use that for establishing the connection back to the client to
send notifications (callbacks).

Given this, it will be pretty easy to make it so the calling code can give
the client invoker the locator to use for callbacks, which it then gives the
invoker server (and will use its own by default as is now).  I can put this
in this weekend (if Jeff doesn't beat me to it).

It sounds like there won't be enough time to include JMS as one of the
invoker transport before the deadline.  However, I would personally be
interested in working with you on it.  Depending on how soon you will have
time to start on it, might be wise to make a branch just for the JMS
transport, until JB4DR1.

-Tom

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
 Nathan Phelps
 Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:44 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26


 Did you guys end up doing it in such a way so that you can use one
 protocol one way and another protocol the other way like you had
 mentioned?

 Secondly, what is really going to be cool when we expose this via AOP
 remoting...  Bill, what are your plans for that?

 Thanks,

 Nathan

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jeff
 Haynie
 Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26

 Jboss Remoting callbacks are in - I wil commit in the next day or so
 when tom and I finish testing.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Bill
 Burke
 Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:06 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26


 I'm ok with JMS.  I didn't think you could rewrite in such short of
 time. Especially with Remoting and AOP just now becoming stable.  I
 think this email thread is good because it will allow us to determine
 whether or not we can release.  I still think there is enough
 functionality.

 Bill

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
  Nathan Phelps
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:48 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
 
  I agree that there is some great stuff in there already.  However,
  being that the AOP transaction, security, remoting, etc. was only
  recently released in its first iteration, and the fact that JBoss
  remoting doesn't yet support true callbacks (Jeff says it
 is coming)
  there is simply no way I can deliver the new JMS
 implementation BUILT
  ON TOP of these services by May 5th!  And I'm going to be out
  basically two weeks between now and then with customers as I know
  others will be as well.
 
  Since the whole point of the JMS rewrite is to take
 advantage of the
  core JBoss AOP services, I haven't really had that much
 time to do so
  since the services have only recently been released.  Therefore, I
  expect that a May 26th release will ONLY INCLUDE THE OLD JMS CODE
  which is currently in HEAD.  It is the only option with a May 5th
  deadline in my opinion.  If everyone is OK with this and we're
  committed to that date, then I am must immediately shift my
 attention
  from the development of the new code build on top of the
 AOP framework

  to the old code currently in HEAD to start working on
 ensuring JMS 1.1

  compliance, stability, etc. as well as applying the HTTP IL code
 currently only in
  Branch_3_2 to HEAD.   Then, after the May 26th release,
 I'll continue
  working on the new JMS code which is build on top of the AOP
  framework.
 
  Comments?
 
  Thanks,
 
  Nathan
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
  Bill Burke
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:22 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
  There's already a lot we can release.
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
  Dain
   Sundstrom
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:01 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
   I think you are delusional if you think JB4 will be ready for
   JavaOne.
  
   -dain
  
   On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 02:47 PM, marc fleury wrote:
  
Guys,
   
We are thinking a lot about the forthcoming JB4
 release.  It is a
  truly
exciting step for us as we believe we will bring a programming
  style,
whose time has come, to a mass audience.
   
AOP as Bill says is a clear wave for system level
 services on par
  with
OOP.  On top

RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26]

2003-04-03 Thread Tom Elrod
Guess Jeff beat me to it ;)

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom
 Elrod
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:49 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBoss remoting callbacks [was JB4DR1 Deadline
 MAY 26]
 
 
 Jeff made the fix last night and I have not looked at the 
 code yet (he still
 has it local while we are testing that and some other fixes 
 out).  However,
 my understanding from Jeff is that the invoker client passes 
 its locator to
 the invoker server if it wishes to receive callbacks.  The 
 invoker server
 will then use that for establishing the connection back to 
 the client to
 send notifications (callbacks).
 
 Given this, it will be pretty easy to make it so the calling 
 code can give
 the client invoker the locator to use for callbacks, which it 
 then gives the
 invoker server (and will use its own by default as is now).  
 I can put this
 in this weekend (if Jeff doesn't beat me to it).
 
 It sounds like there won't be enough time to include JMS as one of the
 invoker transport before the deadline.  However, I would personally be
 interested in working with you on it.  Depending on how soon 
 you will have
 time to start on it, might be wise to make a branch just for the JMS
 transport, until JB4DR1.
 
 -Tom
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
  Nathan Phelps
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:44 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  Did you guys end up doing it in such a way so that you can use one
  protocol one way and another protocol the other way like you had
  mentioned?
 
  Secondly, what is really going to be cool when we expose 
 this via AOP
  remoting...  Bill, what are your plans for that?
 
  Thanks,
 
  Nathan
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Jeff
  Haynie
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:21 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
  Jboss Remoting callbacks are in - I wil commit in the next day or so
  when tom and I finish testing.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Bill
  Burke
  Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:06 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
 
 
  I'm ok with JMS.  I didn't think you could rewrite in such short of
  time. Especially with Remoting and AOP just now becoming stable.  I
  think this email thread is good because it will allow us to 
 determine
  whether or not we can release.  I still think there is enough
  functionality.
 
  Bill
 
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
   Nathan Phelps
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:48 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
  
  
   I agree that there is some great stuff in there already.  However,
   being that the AOP transaction, security, remoting, etc. was only
   recently released in its first iteration, and the fact that JBoss
   remoting doesn't yet support true callbacks (Jeff says it
  is coming)
   there is simply no way I can deliver the new JMS
  implementation BUILT
   ON TOP of these services by May 5th!  And I'm going to be out
   basically two weeks between now and then with customers as I know
   others will be as well.
  
   Since the whole point of the JMS rewrite is to take
  advantage of the
   core JBoss AOP services, I haven't really had that much
  time to do so
   since the services have only recently been released.  Therefore, I
   expect that a May 26th release will ONLY INCLUDE THE OLD JMS CODE
   which is currently in HEAD.  It is the only option with a May 5th
   deadline in my opinion.  If everyone is OK with this and we're
   committed to that date, then I am must immediately shift my
  attention
   from the development of the new code build on top of the
  AOP framework
 
   to the old code currently in HEAD to start working on
  ensuring JMS 1.1
 
   compliance, stability, etc. as well as applying the HTTP IL code
  currently only in
   Branch_3_2 to HEAD.   Then, after the May 26th release,
  I'll continue
   working on the new JMS code which is build on top of the AOP
   framework.
  
   Comments?
  
   Thanks,
  
   Nathan
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
 Behalf Of
   Bill Burke
   Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:22 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
  
   There's already a lot we can release.
  
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
   Dain
Sundstrom
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] JB4DR1 Deadline MAY 26
   
   
I think you