And I just filed bug 153 reporting that EJB 2.0 dependent object
bidirectional relationships fail. I attached a sample program to the bug
for anyone who would like to try it out for themselves.
Jim
--On Monday, October 30, 2000 3:58 AM -0500 Jason Rimmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've filed a few bugs with Bugzilla (149, 150, and 151) regarding a
> null pointer exception with rollback, lack of persistent
> functionality, and lack of client_acknowledgement functionality
> respectively. If 150 and 151 are resolved then the JMS implementation
> will at least be functional. Compliance would seem to be a ways off.
> Note that non-critical bug number 149's already been taken care of.
>
> --
> Jason Rimmer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jason Rimmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Orion-Interest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 10:42 PM
>> Subject: JMS implementation, is it for real?
>>
>>
>> > Is Orion's JMS implementation for real? While it supports the
>> > simplistic behavior as demonstrated by the chat and coffeemaker demo it
>> > doesn't appear to support much else.
>> > JMS parts I can't get working:
>> > o Transactions. Doesn't seem to matter what you call: commit,
>> rollback,
>> > etc. Doesn't make a difference.
>> > o Persistence: Make the change in the jms.xml to define a queue's
>> > persistent-file, set the message delivery mode to persistent, watch it
> get
>> > ignored.
>> >
>> > Has anyone had much luck with this? Perhaps SwiftMQ is the answer
>> here
>> > (even though I want to use the MessageDrivenBeans).
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jason Rimmer
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
