Is ActiveMQ binding also candidate to support async PM? It seems that
Celtix's JMS transport is based on Active MQ.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: A release for JavaOne?
[snip]
Other than that I think it would be good to find ways to
show how Tuscany plans to be more than just another platform for Java
web
services.
Yes, I agree with that. We may have different reasons why we agree. My
reasoning is based on SCA, which is intended to be more than "another
platform for Java web services". Tuscany should be this primarily because
of SCA.
I think the best way to demonstrate this is through extensibility inline
with SCA around impl types and bindings. Practically, I would suggest
this be a JMS binding since JMS is something a lot of Java people use,
particularly in comparison with others, and is the next binding type
targeted by the spec. This shows SOA != web services.
Jim
Jim, I agree. It would be very good to demonstrate a subset of the SCA
async programming model running on top of a JMS binding. I think it would
make a lot sense to do this with the Celtix binding that Dan is starting
to work on. Again there's not a lot of time before May and as I think you
already said on this thread we'll probably be able to only implement a
subset of the async PM (maybe just one one-way invocations without
callbacks for example), but running the async PM on top of the Celtix
binding would help show the power of SCA, and would be a good way to flesh
out any issues and get concrete input into the spec as we start
implementing this.
--
Jean-Sebastien
