Mike Heath wrote: > per you suggestion (http://tinyurl.com/c95ph), James-HA depends on > JCluster (https://jcluster.dev.java.net/) which is BSD licensed.
Ah ... your code has comment references to JGroups, such as: groupName - The JGroups group name used for the distributed locking. protocolStack - The JGroups protocol stack used for the distributed locking. which is what I was reading. If there are no code points that touch JGroups, that does help. > My impression, based on your email that I linked to above, was that > by using JCluster, the JGroups licensing is not an issue. Yes, I believe that to be the case, so this would be a different story. FWIW, as far as I understand it, ActiveMQ (http://activemq.codehaus.org) is the semantic successor to JCluster. > I'm continuing to develop MINA based protocol handlers. In fact, the > project is moving to safehaus.org and is really gaining momentum. I > think the MINA architecture would serve JAMES well as much of the talk > regarding fast-fail overlaps work already done in MINA itself. If you want to contribue to JAMES, which I believe is the mutual desire, doing development elsewhere just makes it a longer road to get into our codebase. As for MINA, I agree with the approach to use a NIO-based framework, and I like what we're doing with MINA, but I believe that it would be a mistake to tie our fast-fail to MINA. It isn't necessary as far as I can see, and I believe that Trustin concurs. As far as I can see, all we need from MINA is RFC compliant handling to deliver properly terminated lines, which we'll take from there. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
