On 9/24/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/22/07, Joseph, Roshan IN BLR SISL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I believe the JMS binding is not included in the latest release and if > > it is due to bugs, I would like to contribute in making it work. Can > > someone point to the issues in JMS binding or let me know the current > > status of it. > > > > > > > > Any help in this regard will be really helpful, as I would like to > > utilize the binding for my prototype which I am making > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Roshan > > > > > > > > > > > > Important notice:This e-mail and any attachment thereto contains > > corporate proprietary information. If you have received it by mistake, > > please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail and its > > attachments from your system. Thank You. > > > Hi Roshan > > You are right, the JMS binding is not included in the latest release. > Someone else has just asked about it's status > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1789). > Basically the JMS binding got to a stage where it supported request/response > type message patterns but not the full asynchronous model you might expect > (see the unit tests included with the binding). It does run currently and > it's included in the build so if you check the latest Java SCA code out of > trunk you can play with it. > > I note, looking at SVN, that there have been a few changes over the last > month or so, including a new implementation of the jms binding model. Your > help would be very much appreciate in improving the JMS binding. Shall we > start making a list here of the things that need to be done? > > Something that springs to mind just having had a brief refresh of the code > is > > 1/ move the model information from o.a.t.s.binding.jms.impl.JMSBinding to > the new model classes under o.a.t.s.binding.jms > > Regards > > Simon > > > Hi Joseph
Did you make and progress with your prototype. Do you need any more help/info. One of our other users has provided some patches to the JMS binding recently you might want to take a look at. Regards Simon
