Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Thursday 28 August 2008 8:26:58 am Benson Margulies wrote: > My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior > comestible for this purpose, should we consider decommissioning or > deprecating the existing CXF JMS in favor of just using it? No, I definitely wouldn't go that rout

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Willem Jiang
We could do some improvement on the CXF JMS transport base on camel-jms codes. I also saw some requirement about using spring JMS template to implement the CXF JMS transport API. Willem Bharath Ganesh wrote: I can work on this. Let me get started by setting up the CXF JMS transport and play

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Christian Schneider
Benson Margulies schrieb: My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior comestible for this purpose, should we consider decommissioning or deprecating the existing CXF JMS in favor of just using it? On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Christian Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Bharath Ganesh
I can work on this. Let me get started by setting up the CXF JMS transport and play a bit with it. On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Eoghan Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1 to decommissioning the CXF JMS transport. > > If there are perceived shortcomings in the CXF JMS transport config, let

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Eoghan Glynn
-1 to decommissioning the CXF JMS transport. If there are perceived shortcomings in the CXF JMS transport config, lets identify these issues, raise corresponding JIRAs, and get them fixed. /Eoghan Benson Margulies wrote: My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior comes

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Benson Margulies
My question is dumber. If Camel, a part of Apache, is a superior comestible for this purpose, should we consider decommissioning or deprecating the existing CXF JMS in favor of just using it? On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Christian Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Glen Mazza schrieb: >> >

Re: Concerns about the Camel / CXF documentation

2008-08-28 Thread Christian Schneider
Glen Mazza schrieb: Christian, I have a few concerns about your write up on using Camel as a JMS alternative with CXF[1]: 1.) I don't understand why you are duplicating your blog entry on a CXF confluence page. Can't you just keep your blog entry up-to-date with your link to it from our artic