5 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: RE: qpid + Java without JMS...?
My issue at the time was why have a 'unnamed' exchange? Why not just use
amq.direct? Also why bake that into the protocol rather than just allowing
implementations to offer that as an option - if you are using a high
ndings are reliably handled for you.
RG
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim
Sent: 03 July 2009 02:59
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid + Java without JMS...?
Robert Greig wrote:
> I seem to recall that we bind both to the unnamed exchange and
> amq.direct. There was a lot of de
andled for you.
RG
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim
Sent: 03 July 2009 02:59
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid + Java without JMS...?
Robert Greig wrote:
> I seem to recall that we bind both to the unnamed exchange and
> amq.direct. There was a lot of debate at the time
Robert Greig wrote:
I seem to recall that we bind both to the unnamed exchange and
amq.direct. There was a lot of debate at the time about this (well I
argued about it!). I was and still am of the opinion that the unnamed
exchange is pointless and confusing and introduced for a very bad
reason -
- "Martin Ritchie" wrote:
> Andrew & Garrett
> Is there a reason you don't want to use JMS? I struggle to see why
> someone would want to a non-JMS interface so having a real world use
> case would be great, if you have the time.
Our case is a bit strange in that wrote our libraries in both P
the required set of
changes to code as users upgrade.
In that vein I look forward to seeing and commenting on the WCF impl that our
colleagues at MSFT are working on.
RG
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim
Sent: 02 July 2009 11:34
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid + Java
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
The only thing I could see is that some of the exchange binding as done
through JMS is a bit odd. I create 3 JMS "Queues" which result in on QPID
queue being created with 2 bindings. If there was a more logical connection
n Skinner [mailto:aidan.skin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:50 AM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid + Java without JMS...?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> The only thing I could see is that some of the exchange binding as done
> through JMS
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> The only thing I could see is that some of the exchange binding as done
> through JMS is a bit odd. I create 3 JMS "Queues" which result in on QPID
> queue being created with 2 bindings. If there was a more logical connection
> between QPID qu
Martin Ritchie wrote:
2009/7/2 Andrew M :
Is there anyone out there that could email me an example java program
demonstrating this? That'd be hugely helpful.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew & Garrett
Is there a reason you don't want to use JMS? I struggle to see why
someone would want to a non-JMS int
on-JMS interface so having a real world use
case would be great, if you have the time.
Cheers
Martin
> -Original Message-
> From: Garrett Smith [mailto:g...@rrett.us.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:54 PM
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: qpid + Java without
Is there anyone out there that could email me an example java program
demonstrating this? That'd be hugely helpful.
Thanks,
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Smith [mailto:g...@rrett.us.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:54 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: qpid +
- "Andrew M" wrote:
> What's the status on the non-JMS java access? A while ago there was
> a discussion of using a native API in Java instead of a JMS API. The
> native API was not particularly well documented if I remember. Has
> that changed?
I can't speak for the official policy, but
What's the status on the non-JMS java access? A while ago there was a
discussion of using a native API in Java instead of a JMS API. The native
API was not particularly well documented if I remember. Has that changed?
Thanks,
Andrew
14 matches
Mail list logo
