I think I see the issue. If jms102 support is enabled, we need to create a SingleConnectionFactory102 instead of SingleConnectionFactory. Probably should check the spring-jms jar for other classes ending in 102 to see if we need to change anything else.
Dan On Tuesday 11 November 2008 2:11:13 am Christian Schneider wrote: > Hi Seumas, > > could you post the configuration you used? > > Greetings > > Christian > > Seumas Soltysik schrieb: > > I have just upgraded to CXF 2.1.3 and am running against an old > > implementation of SonicMQ version 5, which I believe based upon the old > > 1.0.2 apis. However, I am still getting a stack which indicates that CXF > > does still not seem compatible with older versions of JMS. Clearly the > > stack show that a JmsTemplate102 is being used, yet the problem I was > > having with 2.1.2 persists. > > > > java.lang.AbstractMethodError: > > progress.message.jclient.QueueConnectionFactory.createConnection()Ljavax > > /jms/Connection; > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.UserCredentialsConnectionFactoryAdapt > > er.doCreateConnection(UserCredentialsConnectionFactoryAdapter.java:177) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.UserCredentialsConnectionFactoryAdapt > > er.createConnection(UserCredentialsConnectionFactoryAdapter.java:149) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.SingleConnectionFactory.doCreateConne > > ction(SingleConnectionFactory.java:316) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.SingleConnectionFactory.initConnectio > > n(SingleConnectionFactory.java:270) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.SingleConnectionFactory.createConnect > > ion(SingleConnectionFactory.java:215) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.connection.SingleConnectionFactory.createQueueCo > > nnection(SingleConnectionFactory.java:227) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.core.JmsTemplate102.createConnection(JmsTemplate > > 102.java:170) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.core.JmsTemplate.execute(JmsTemplate.java:461) > > at > > org.springframework.jms.core.JmsTemplate.execute(JmsTemplate.java:436) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.transport.jms.JMSFactory.resolveOrCreateDestination(JMSFa > > ctory.java:120) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.transport.jms.JMSFactory.createJmsListener(JMSFactory.jav > > a:101) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.transport.jms.JMSDestination.activate(JMSDestination.java > > > > :99) > > > > at > > org.apache.cxf.transport.AbstractObservable.setMessageObserver(AbstractO > > bservable.java:48) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.binding.AbstractBindingFactory.addListener(AbstractBindin > > gFactory.java:166) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.binding.soap.SoapBindingFactory.addListener(SoapBindingFa > > ctory.java:721) > > at org.apache.cxf.endpoint.ServerImpl.start(ServerImpl.java:122) > > at org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointImpl.doPublish(EndpointImpl.java:263) > > at org.apache.cxf.jaxws.EndpointImpl.publish(EndpointImpl.java:201) > > at > > org.apache.cxf.jaxws.spi.ProviderImpl.createAndPublishEndpoint(ProviderI > > mpl.java:84) > > at javax.xml.ws.Endpoint.publish(Endpoint.java:47) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:42 AM > > To: Christian Schneider; dev@cxf.apache.org > > Subject: JMS 1.0.2 support...... > > > > > > Christian, > > > > The old JMS transport pretty much just used the JMS 1.0.2 API's so it > > worked > > with old versions of JMS providers and such. The new stuff seems to > > default > > to 1.1 which is causing issues. I see that if you use the new config, > > it's > > settable. However, if you use the old wsdl based stuff, it cannot. > > I'm > > wondering if it make sense for the line in JMSOldConfigHolder that > > reads: > > jmsConfig.setUseJms11(true); > > should be changed to false to be compatible with the old version? > > > > I suppose we could add a optional "useJms11" attribute (default to > > false) on > > one of the old extensors (address maybe?) to set this so if someone > > wants to > > use 1.1, they could, but default behavior is maintained. > > > > Thoughts? -- Daniel Kulp Software Fellow Progress Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dankulp.com/blog -- Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dankulp.com/blog
