>
>
> He also asked for some kind of "throttling" mechanism (his word) to
> control the rate at which work was delivered from one component to another.
> JMS doesn't define throttling or flow control, of course, but it's the kind
> of thing that JMS might cover in the future.
>
> It wasn't clear to me what was stopping existing JMS support in Java EE
> being sufficient for his purposes. Was he looking for more control over the
> flow of messages (flow control, throttling, load balancing etc) or was he
> simply looking for a different API? (Jurgen is welcome to join this
> discussion).
>
>
I believe this should be up to the implementations, right? You can't really
define implementation semantic on the API, can you?
Or am I missing the point?