On 19 July 2010 22:12, Ron Smith <ronsmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm with you, Jim. I think that is part of why others at my company consider > spring to be "evil" -- for a "light-weight" framework, there sure are a lot > of pieces you have to include and they seem to be growing and becoming more > intertwined with each new release.
FWIW in the old days, you'd just depend on "spring.jar". The problem appears worse now that each spring jar is highly modular. > Like you, I'm not griping, it just seems > like everything in the java open-source world is starting to depend on > everything else in the java open-source world. If you really don't want to depend on spring and your JMS requirements are quite simple (e.g. you don't want pooling of producers/sessions/connections, you don't want transactions, reconnection/retry, concurrent consuming and are happy to work on, say, JMS 1.1 only) it would be quite easy to create a JMS component & endpoint which just used the JMS API and did not use Spring at all. I agree the Spring JMS stuff looks like it has quite a lot of dependencies (though part of that is due to its been decoupled into many jars) - all of which is out of our control. But until someone comes along with a leaner & meaner library which offers similar features I don't see much alternative. Unless someone (Ron? Jim?) fancies volunteering to write a lean & mean alternative folks can use if they want to use JMS but not reuse the spring jars. Another alternative Ron/Jim - use uberjar to slap all the spring-jms / camel-jms / camel stuff together so you only have "camel-all.jar" to worry about :) -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://fusesource.com/
