John,
I think that's a sound/wise approach. Any JMS abstraction created fits
more naturally into javax.jms anyway :-).
Cheers,
Reza
On 6/15/2011 5:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (writing to the users, hoping the experts see this).
>
> Pete and I essentially agreed that the JMS "features" he was proposing
> originally in CDI 1.1 belong more in the JMS spec to cover CDI
> integration, not for CDI to impose requirements on other technologies
> out of its control. :-)
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Adam Bien <abien_at_adam-bien.com
> <mailto:abien_at_adam-bien.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Experts!,
>
> Fyi: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-106
>
> regards!,
>
> adam
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3705 - Release Date: 06/15/11
>