James, The reason that the JMS Connector creates and accepts BytesMessage is for attachments support. The rationale is that the attachment encoding may not map well into a TextMessage. However, there is nothing that says that a simple soap message without attachments could/should not be sent as a TextMessage. This support is currently not available but could be considered for a future iteration of the JMS transport if enough people want this.
The code to add support for TextMessage is relatively straightforward. Would you be interested in contributing a patch? Thanks, Jaime > -----Original Message----- > From: James Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 5:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: JMS transport only supports BytesMessage ?? > > Having a look at the SimpleJMSListener it assumes all messages > are javax.jms.BytesMessage. > > > /** > > * This method is called asynchronously whenever a message arrives. > > * @param message > > */ > > public void onMessage(javax.jms.Message message) > > { > > try > > { > > // pass off the message to a worker as a BytesMessage > > SimpleJMSWorker worker = new SimpleJMSWorker(this, > (BytesMessage)message); > > > Various other parts of the code also make this assumption (e.g. > JMSConnector). > Is there any particular reason why this is so, and why TextMessage > is not supported ? > Are there any plans to support other message types in the future ?? > > Can anyone shed any light on this > TIA James
