I was thinking ActiveMQ may be the transport mechanism. There's a lot
more to the programming model that would be part of Tuscany.
Jim
On Mar 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
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
