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 evaluation goes good, we'll be using activemq and the NMS provider for all of our background processes here at Quad. most likely a jdbc master/slave setup for high availability. Again thanks for the feedback. we'll be keeping an eye out for the release. please update your progress on this thread if you can. semog wrote: > > 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 > issues > may be bumped to 1.2, but those will be decided on a case-by-case basis. > The major features of 1.1 have been put into place and are currently being > used/tested/verified by various people. Feel free to report back any of > your experiences, both positive and negative. > > Thanks, > Jim > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:17 PM, magellings <mark.gelli...@qg.com> wrote: > >> >> Could anyone tell me if there is an estimated release date for NMS 1.1? >> I >> see there are only a few more open issues in the JIRA. >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Estimated-release-date-for-ActiveMQ-NMS-1.1-tp22089569p22089569.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Estimated-release-date-for-ActiveMQ-NMS-1.1-tp22089569p22121624.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
