Jaime,

   Thanks for clearing that up. I've already had
to hack the changes to get my current proof of concept
project working. I  will be happy to contribute these
when I have some time at the end of the project to
apply them properly.
How do  I contribute the patches ?.

Thanks
James

----- Original Message -----
From: Jaime Meritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: JMS transport only supports BytesMessage ??


> 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
>
>
>

Reply via email to