On Nov 30, 2007 5:50 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
