Even then, JMS 2.0 is a client library. Its not the protocol implementation to your backing queue. On the flip side, there are many AMQP implementations, it may be a better approach to connecting in a vendor agnostic way.
John On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:39 PM Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > I'm not aware of a plan to implement JMS 2.0 in ActiveMQ 5.x. I believe > Artemis implements JMS 2.0, but you'd have to convince your potential > customer to switch to it and it's not a simple drop-in replacement so they > might not be willing to do that just to use your "thingy." > > I'm not aware of anyone who's "faked" a JMS 2.0 client JAR, but maybe > someone else is. > > Tim > On Feb 29, 2016 2:21 PM, "Peter Hansson" <peterhansson...@yahoo.com > .invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi there > > We've developed a "thingy" that integrates with various messaging > > architectures. So far - at the sites where we have deployed - we've had > IBM > > MQ, Tibco Message Service and even a Wildlfy installation (HornetQ) at > the > > other end. We've developed in Java and used JMS so we use exactly the > same > > code against any of these and haven't actually cared to much about these > > messaging architectures at the other end of our software. > > Now we have customer that uses ActiveMQ and this is new to us. > > We have (without it being deliberate) developed against JMS 2.0 because > we > > use async send. Frankly we haven't paid attention to this. It just so > > happens that the middleware we've met so far have been JMS 2.0 compliant > so > > this has not been an issue. > > > > So, we are in need of a client jar for ActiveMQ 5.x that supports JMS > > 2.0. Is such a thing available? If so from where? I've been looking at > > some JIRA tickets but I've failed to figure out the exact status of > JMS2.0 > > together with ActiveMQ, Apollo, Artemis and what have you. I'm confused. > > I believe the customer in question is running some fairly recent version > > of ActiveMQ, I believe it was 5.10.x. > > I don't think we have an appetite to rewrite our code just to land this > > customer. The business case is probably not strong enough. > > Perhaps I should emphasize that we're really only concerned with the > > client side of things. The actual messaging infrastructure (I believe you > > guys call them brokers?) is not our headache. As for the JMS 2.0 feature > we > > use we couldn't care less if this is something which is faked in the > client > > lib or if it's a native feature on the server side. > > > > Any recommendation on how to proceed ? > > > > Peter > > > > > > >
