On 7/5/07, John Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All, A quick question on the use of JMS. The Tuscany web site says that the supported bindings are currently: Webservice using Apache Axis2 JMS (tested with Apache ActiveMQ) JSON-RPC So how would someone use the Tuscany JMS binding with a different JMS implementation - say WAS JMS? Also how far does support of SOAP/JMS go? It appears that the JMS binding is currently of limited purpose (simple two-way sync only) - is there any plan to support full SOAP/JMS? Regards, John Dr John Hunt Principal Architect Platform and Architecture Cramer > Amdocs OSS Division t: +44 (0)1225 32 7330 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.amdocs.com/oss <http://www.amdocs.com/oss> This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at http://www.amdocs.com/email_disclaimer.asp
Hi John You are right that the current JMS binding has limited function. I ported the binding over from the old apis and got it to a stage where it did what I needed it to for some of the distributed runtime work I'm doing. As far as I know no one is working on it just at the moment so it's difficult to give a prognosis of when it will be complete but it is certainly the intention to provided a JMS binding matching the spec [1]. In terms of work outstanding. The model, i.e. the bit that reads JMS type information from composite files, is pretty much done apart from properties. The main piece that needs adding in is support for one-way interfaces, i.e. asynchronous messaging. We need to check if the target service has a one way interface etc. There is also support for callbacks, conversations to work in but work is going on elsewhere in Tuscany upgrading support for this generally so we need to wait for this to come to an end first. The interface with ApacheMQ is fairly well partitioned into the JMSResourceFactoryActiveMQImpl so we would need a new on of these to switch brokers, and a mechanism to choose between supported brokers of course. As for SOAP/JMS. It's not something that we have tried yet in Tuscany I don't believe. I'm sure someone will jump in here and correct me if they have been working on it. We would need a new binding to bring the two technologies together. Do you have specific scenarios that you would like Tuscany to support? Regards Simon [1] http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Service+Component+Architecture+Specifications
