KahaDB is the current default persistence provider, and kaha will be depreciated in the future.
I agree, the naming is a little confusing, it reflects something of the evolution of the stores. There was jdbc, then amq store, then kaha, then kahadb. KahaDB has been hardening for the past 2 years, since 5.3. It is the recommend choice for file based persistence. On 22 October 2012 12:01, Pauli Kaila <pauli.ka...@napa.fi> wrote: > It indeed seems that there are two different Kaha persistence adapters, the > KahaPersistenceAdapter and KahaDBPersistenceAdapter. So what you are saying > is that the KahaDBPersistenceAdapter should work better? Or were you just > pointing out an error in my previous post (me talking about KahaDB instead > of Kaha)? > > The fact that there are two so similarly named persistence adapters is quite > confusing. Perhaps other one should be deprecated. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Issues-with-KahaDB-persistence-in-ActiveMQ-5-6-0-IndexOutOfBoundsException-IllegalStateException-tp4658031p4658040.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- http://redhat.com http://blog.garytully.com
