Greg, What I am also pushing is for a protocol level API. Even if we don't document this or promote this API, I still think from a design POV we need to have a cleaner seperation. So why not have protocol API and then have that 'extended JMS API' if you will.
But lets not kill the idea of a protocol level API. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise??? Regards, Rajith On 9/19/06, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Greig wrote: > Unless what is being proposed is > what I read into Gordon's comments (I don't want to put words in your > mouth so let me know if I'm misrerepresenting you Gordon) which is a > strictly protocol-level API. Yes, I was talking about a protocol-level API.
