Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Yes, Robert, I have looked at it as one of the options for future
spooling.
> > However, there are issues and it may not be the easiest and most
appropriate
> > solution.
> >
> > The requirement for transactionality at the processor level is
important.
> > Using just a database for both spool and message store is easier than
having
> > both JMS and database, and thus requiring XA.
> >
> > There are also issues related to filtering. JMS has a static definition
of
> > filtering, which does not serve the needs of our spooler.
>
> i'm not proposing to replace spooling with JMS, just to provide an
> easier way for JAMES to interoperate
So let's follow this through ... what's the goal? What would ActiveMQ
provide in this regard? Interoperate with what? I am all in favor of
supporting additional protocols, e.g., XMPP, but a message is just content.
What is the envelope? What is the routing info? We can expose a service
(listener) that supports the protocol, but what happens next? Right now our
internal spooling is based entirely on the SMTP envelope. We can
generalize, of course. We could have different pipelines, in fact, with
relatively little effort.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
