Not only reasonable, it's inevitable. We can't build qpid without having such an API inside it's only a question of how much we document and promote it to users.
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 10:49 -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > 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. > >
