yeah it might get a little overly complicated to split things out. Perhaps this is something we should worry about once more implementations start cropping up?
On 2/19/07, Nathan Mittler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If we separate out the cms code from activemq-cpp, how would we go about managing the dependency between activemq-cpp and cms? As it stands right now, the user just has to download a single archive that has all the code (apart from standard packages like cppunit). If we break it out, will the user have to download and install cms before downloading and installing activemq-cpp? Maybe there's a way that we can have automake checkout and build cms automatically when building activemq-cpp? On 2/19/07, Mittler, Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The APIs should definitely be implementation agnostic. > > The activemq-cpp implementation of CMS for Stomp, however, uses the > ActiveMQ extensions, so it won't work with just any old stomp broker. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James Strachan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: mini sites for NMS and CMS projects > > > > On 2/19/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Great point. So should we try to keep these CMS/NMS spaces > > > implementation agnostic? > > > > Yeah. e.g. NMS can (just about) talk to any pure Stomp > > broker, ditto the CMS as well. So we should definitely try to > > make NMS and CMS talk to any broker. > > -- > > > > James > > ------- > > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > >
-- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
