Bernd Fondermann ha scritto: > From my experience EJB incl. MDB does _not_ open options for > deplyoment, they _narrow_ them. > You would need an EJB container, and add much more footprint by the > way than by adding a JMS implementation. > > There are so many lightweight and more flexible component models. > Spring also offers lightweight messaging, transactions etc.
+1 > One important observation to add: We are talking about general > architectural overview and what backends to use for some concerns > (storage, message proc). > > But. What is completely missing is the important glue in between. The > APIs which describe how components interact and what each component > does. And I am not satisfied how it is done ATM. The object model > would need to be revisited nevertheless. > > Bernd I agree. I guess Noel was suggesting that SMTP server communicate with the main spooler/container via JMS/JCR apis. I'm not completely convinced by this idea: maybe we need much simpler contracts for message submission and jms/jcr can be used to write exchangeable implementations. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
