You can work syncronously with JMS with the blocking receive() message and selector where correlationIdOfReply=requestMessageId.
- J -----Original Message----- From: Jochen Wiedmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: July 23, 2007 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: JMS transport for XML-RPC On 7/23/07, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm hoping to modify my existing xml-rpc interface to use a JMS > transport rather than HTTP. I want the reliable delivery of JMS and am > losing a small percentage of messages using http. Is there a good > reason for me not to attempt to add a JMS transport to apache xml-rpc? > i.e., because maybe everyone just uses Mule to do this, or JMS is not > suitable for xml rpc (despite that people use it for soap), etc. Any > comments appreciated. Funny idea. The only problem I can think of, is that with JMS you cannot work synchronously. In other words, you've got to implement some kind of listener for the incoming replies, because JMS is a one-way transport. Apart from that, it should work fine. The XmlRpcStreamTransport is an abstract class, which was explicitly designed for use beyond HTTP. I suggest taking it as a starting point. Jochen -- "Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in a preventative effect against manipulating elections. The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines and obviously believing that we don't need a police, because all illegal actions are forbidden. http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
