On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: > KahaDB is the current default persistence provider, and kaha will be > depreciated in the future. >
Gary I think you should log a JIRA about this. Then we can start getting the message out to the community that the old kaha is deprecated, so ppl dont start using it on new projects. > 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 -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat Email: cib...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
