Ok. good to know Rajith. Thanks! Steve Huston (sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity and typos)
On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:52 AM, "Rajith Attapattu" <rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Steve Huston <shus...@riverace.com> wrote: >> Good start to this discussion, Rajith. >> >> I haven't worked with the current JMS client, so I'm not sure what the >> "nagging issues" are, but my first reaction to the #2 path is it may give >> you more opportunity for support in more environments over time. I can >> envision proton going into environments where Qpid may not be, such as >> embedded and low-power situations. > > Steve, there has been several inquiries about using AMQP in mobile > environments. > I would assume Messenger API (defined in proton) is going to be more > attractive in those env's due to it's low footprint. > JMS may not be as attractive an option as the above (or even the > Messaging API defined in Qpid) due to dependencies and even > restrictions in some cases. > For example the javax namespace is not allowed in Android. > > Regards, > > Rajith > >> FWIW, >> -Steve >> >> On 9/19/12 6:32 PM, "Rajith Attapattu" <rajit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> There are a few folks who are keen to have AMQP 1.0 support for our JMS >>> client. >>> Given that the parent AMQP TC is starting a bindings and mappings TC >>> which will cover JMS, I thought it would be a good idea to get a >>> discussion going on here as well. >>> We could aim to build the client as we progress through the TC and >>> provide feedback if necessary. >>> >>> On the hand, we've had extensive discussions on building a new JMS >>> client from scratch when adding 1.0 support. >>> The primary motivation was to address some of the nagging issues >>> around the old client. >>> >>> So far there have been two schools of thought on how to get AMQP 1.0 >>> support. >>> >>> 1. JMS Client --> Qpid API --> Proton >>> >>> 2. JMS Client --> Proton >>> >>> While option #1 seems like killing two birds with one stone, I think >>> we should seriously consider option #2 as well. >>> >>> I would love to hear everybody's thoughts on this. >>> More importantly it's good if we could also discuss on a plan and set >>> some milestones to ensure we stay focused. >>> >>> Personally I would love to see a reasonably working prototype by 0.22. >>> If we can get something going for 0.20 that would be a bonus, even if >>> it's just experimental (preferably on a branch) and Alpha quality. >>> >>> I mentioned the above milestones to kick start the discussion and get >>> things rolling. >>> We could start on a branch and then move it to trunk during 0.22 if >>> everybody is satisfied with the progress. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Rajith >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
