On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 15:53 -0700, magellings wrote:
> Hello. I didn't get a response on the question below when attempting to
> follow-up. But I did see that the latest commit to Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ
> states deploying 1.1. Does this mean 1.1 is available?
>
> jgomes 01 April 2009, 13:19:40 -0
Hello. I didn't get a response on the question below when attempting to
follow-up. But I did see that the latest commit to Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ
states deploying 1.1. Does this mean 1.1 is available?
jgomes 01 April 2009, 13:19:40 -0500 (6 days ago) Make ReviewDeploy
Apache.NMS.ActiveMQ 1.
Hello. Just following up on this. It looks like there are still quite a few
items on the backlog for version 1.1. Has any progress been made? Looking
to hopefully utilize the 1.1 version with the failover protocol
implementation in production by end of May 2009.
semog wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I
Thanks for the update. I work at Quad/Graphics in sussex, wi and we're
currently evaluating activemq with the NMS ActiveMq provider as a
replacement for all of our background job queue services.
Are main interest right now is the failover protocol implementation in
version 1.1. Provided our e
Hi,
I don't have an estimate yet, but I want to get it completed soon. I have
several of my own projects that are going into wide-spread production, and
it would be good to have it stabilized. I'm working on getting some of the
outstanding issues whittled down in order to make this happen. Some
