a ping to see if we can get closure on an approach...
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Mark Pollack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:09 AM
To: 'dev@activemq.apache.org'
Subject: RE: NMS API design question regarding AckMode
Hi,
My suggestion is to have
Hi,
Just a ping to see if we can get closure on an approach...
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Mark Pollack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:09 AM
To: 'dev@activemq.apache.org'
Subject: RE: NMS API design question regarding AckMode
Hi,
My suggestion is to have
(for
'advanced' data types like xml, arrays etc.) This has seemed to work out
well, at least no complaints.
Cheers,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Rob Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:32 AM
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: NMS API design question
Hi,
I'm digging into the NMS API a bit more as I plan to release NMS support in
Spring.NET in the coming months (which James had a hand in as well) and I
have a question regarding the AcknowledgementMode enum. The current values
are those in the JMS spec (DUPS_OK_ACKNOWLEDGE,
Hi Mark,
I like the idea of having providers extend the session modes to what makes
sense for them. For instance, MSMQ may ignore transactional, but have some
additional acknowledgment mode. However, what do you propose as a solution
such that provider's individual extensions to the
