As I said it s going to be painful to have everybody agreeing on whether there exist legal doubts about NMS and/or AMQP. Moreover, it is not yet clear if we want to define a language transparent AMQP API and we are debating whether JMS should be extended. So, under those circumstances I would suggest that we postpone a little bit providing a NMS support for concentrating on a .Net client that is directly targeting WCF and BizTalk.
Note that I am not saying that we should not support NMS right now only because of legal issues (I was the one suggesting first that it may be a good idea to support it). I only feel that supporting a new API may confuse us more that it would help. Arnaud > > I have not read through all the threads on the topic, but if there is > > legal doubt about it > > , it would make sense to explore all other alternatives first. > > The same legal doubt over NMS (i.e. does reading the JMS API taint you > from ever writing other non-Java messaging stuff) also applies to AMQP > itself - it could be tainted too; as at least one contributor to the > AMQP specification has read the JMS specification (myself). There > could well be others too. > > So I guess both NMS and AMQP need legal clarification on the tainting > caused by reading the JMS specification. >
