[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XMLBlaster as a JMS implementation
Kyle Cordes wrote:
> > Basic PtP and Pub/Sub is both finished.
> > XmlBlaster is not JMS conforming, and it is not our
> > goal to be a JMS implementation.
> > I heared from some other users, that they think of
> > adding a xmlBlaster - JMS gateway, i don't know if they
> > are working on it.
> > IMHO, JMS as several drawbacks.
> > We want to be simpler and more powerful - which we are :-)
> How would adding support for the JMS API be a drawback? It would not
> mean you need to remove your powerful, simple API, right?
No, but one thing which might be hard to integrate is the
matching from key/values to xml meta informations and vice versa.
> >From an application developer point of view, it's a lot more
> future-proof to adopt a standard API (JMS) than a proprietary one.
JMS is no standard, it is a spec organized by a company called Sun.
(But you are somehow right, this is currently accepted as kind of a
And the world knows other languages than Java.
mailto:ruff at swand.lake.de