Hi Sebastien, If the SCADefinitions model must hold jms binding definitions, I guess it must add the jms binding as a dependency. On the other hand the jms binding already brings in the 'definitions' module as a downsteam dependency.
I guess that some cleaning up of the Contribution might ease a bit of things. I am wondering if the 'contribution' module should be devoid of any dependency on definitions, policy and assembly. I am going to give this a stab now. Thanks. - Venkat On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Venkata Krishnan wrote: > > Hi Ant, > > > > I suppose this is going to simply use the StAX processor that we > currently > > have for jms binding. That being the case I see there is going to be > > circular dependency issues > > I may be able to help with the circular dependencies issues, could you > help me understand what circular dependencies you are seeing? > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
