Robert Greig wrote:
On 07/06/07, Jonathan Robie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't the obvious solution to have two APIs?
OK, so this leads back to one of my other points: are both APIs going
to be equivalent in terms of capabilities? Is the JMS API going to be
some poor cousin of the other API? Or are we going to use the
"extended JMS" approach to allow full use of AMQP capabilities via an
API that is fundamentally JMS-like.
If both APIs are going to have equivalent power, then that certainly
is workable. But I would still question the value of it (certainly I
would say the opportunity cost is too high).
I certainly don't think JMS should be positioned as the 'poor cousin'.
We should aim to make features that AMQP offers available in sensible
and intuitive ways (details debated on a case-by-case basis).
However, if we agree that having the mapping of JMS to AMQP done via a
lower-level 'AMQP' layer then maybe there isn't much extra effort
involved in allowing those who want to to play with that directly? As
pointed out by others, people should be aware that the AMQP API will
likely change with each release until 1-0 of course.
