On 15/02/2012 15:10, Andrew Kennedy wrote:
>
> Firstly, apologies for my silence on the list, things have been busy at work. As Nigel mentioned a couple of weks ago, I
> recently joined the expert group, and am looking forward to participating, and the early draft seems like a good place
> to start.
Definitely! Please feel free to comment on or query any of the changes in it. It would be good to get feedback from
someone who is an expert but who has not been involved in the previous discussions.
> A bit about me - I work for a company called Cloudsoft, we produce two interesting products:
>
> Monterey is a middleware solution for mobile Actors in the cloud, mediated via JMS (implemented using Qpid AMQP 0-10,
> currently) brokers. This requires high throughput, low latency and the ability to be very sure of the disposition of
> messages that are being sent, i.e. has the entire byte buffer reached the JMS driver/the TCP driver/the broker yet, as
> well as needing to occasionally delve into AMQP itself to do things that aren't (yet) possible in JMS.
>
> We are also developing Brooklyn, which is more of a PaaS tool for rolling out services, some of which would be JMS
> brokers, or JEE servers with embedded brokers, and JMS discovery would come in useful for us here.
>
> We are also interested in CDI integration for out products and many of the JMS 2.0 CDI hooks look like they could be
> useful, and will require further investigation.
>
> As well as that, I am a committer for the Apache Qpid project, which is a Java based (and hence JMS API compliant)
> mesage broker. It uses AMQP 0-8 to 0-10 as the actual wire protocol with AMQP 1-0 in the works, so looking at any
> commonalities between AMQP 1-0 and JMS 2.0 would be very interesting to me.
As I think I mentioned when we spoke on the phone, if you think there are features that could be added to JMS to make it
easier for it to coexist with AMQP please do bring them to this group for discussion.
Nigel
>
> So, good to be here, and I hope I can make myself useful!