Hi, I am getting a bit perplexed with the concepts of light weight components and JBI components,static and dynamic loading of components, use of Servicemix.xml and JBI.xml. Here is what i understand. It would be greatly indebted if someone validates this information for me
1. Light weight components as defined in * org.apache.servicemix.components.jms* can be loaded on the JBI container at startup time using servicemix.xml. 2. Light weight components can be added to servicemix-lwcontainer<http://servicemix.org/site/servicemix-lwcontainer.html> , at run time,using JBI.xml at run time. 3. JBI compliant binding component as defined in * org.apache.servicemix.jms* can be loaded at runtime on to the JBI container at run time using JBI.xml. 4. JBI compliant binding component can be loaded using servicemix.xmlstatically at startup. Please let me know if i wrong in my understand with some or all of the points I have mentioned above. Thanks in advance William On 6/5/06, william kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Guillaume, I bumped into http://servicemix.org/site/what-is-a-lightweight-component.html article which helped. Regards, William On 6/2/06, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The first one is http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/jms.html > and the second one is > http://servicemix.goopen.org/site/servicemix-jms.html > > The main difference is that servicemix-jms is a JBI compliant binding > component, > whereas the first one is a lightweight component. I would advise to use > servicemix-jms > whic has more features (still lacking JCA support though) and can also > be > configured > in a static servicemix.xml configuration file. > > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > > On 6/2/06, william kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi. > > I find that there are two sets of packages for components in service > mix > > > > 1. org.apache.servicemix.components.jms > > 2. org.apache.servicemix.jms > > > > Can any one tell me the difference? Which is the package that needs to > > used > > to configure JMS endpoints and why? > > Thanks in advance, > > William > > > > > >
