I think I see the issue. If jms102 support is enabled, we need to create a
SingleConnectionFactory102 instead of SingleConnectionFactory. Probably
should check the spring-jms jar for other classes ending in 102 to see if we
need to change anything else.
Dan
On Tuesday 11 November 2008 2:
: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:11 AM
To: Seumas Soltysik
Cc: dev@cxf.apache.org; Daniel Kulp
Subject: Re: JMS 1.0.2 support..
Hi Seumas,
could you post the configuration you used?
Greetings
Christian
Seumas Soltysik schrieb:
> I have just upgraded to CXF 2.1.3 and am running against an
I have just upgraded to CXF 2.1.3 and am running against an old
implementation of SonicMQ version 5, which I believe based upon the old
1.0.2 apis. However, I am still getting a stack which indicates that CXF
does still not seem compatible with older versions of JMS. Clearly the
stack show that a J
Hi Seumas,
could you post the configuration you used?
Greetings
Christian
Seumas Soltysik schrieb:
I have just upgraded to CXF 2.1.3 and am running against an old
implementation of SonicMQ version 5, which I believe based upon the old
1.0.2 apis. However, I am still getting a stack which indi
On Saturday 11 October 2008 3:34:52 am Christian Schneider wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> sounds reasonable to me. I have added the config element to address and
> set the default.
I think setting useJms11 to false for 2.0.x and 2.1.x probably makes sense for
compatibility sake. For 2.2 (trunk), it proba
Hi Dan,
sounds reasonable to me. I have added the config element to address and
set the default.
Greetings
Christian
Daniel Kulp schrieb:
Christian,
The old JMS transport pretty much just used the JMS 1.0.2 API's so it worked
with old versions of JMS providers and such. The new stuff
