One option in AMQP would be to write a custom exchange to handle the
concept of delivery at a scheduled time. Exchanges are effectively an
extension point in the protocol so that you can customise delivery
algorithms.
The Glasgow broker currently doesn't have a well defined API to allow the
averag
Let me try to address your concerns.
> And as far as the openness of the spec itself - this is, too, an issue.
> I will continue voting -1 until we really determine that - unlike JCP -
> we can have a no-NDA scenario with respect to TCKs etc. And that,
> unlike Oasis, the implementation is covere
I agree that the debate on the name is not a useful discussion. If nobody
else has a problem with the use of proper nouns in general can I suggest
that we move back to discussing the more significant points raised by
others?
Regarding the openness of the standard and its processes, I would like to
This seems utterly ridiculous to me. "Raises certain moral questions"?
"Goes against the wishes of the communities it affects"?
Did the residents of Granada feel exploited when Ford decided to name a car
after it? How about the Seat Ibiza?
Do you boycott Penguin biscuits [a brand of biscuits in t
So it would be fine if development had been funded by the public sector (in
the form of Glasgow City Council) but since it was funded by a private
organisation it's not ok?
Robert
|-+>
| | "Danny Angus"|
| | <[EMAIL PROT
I am not sure that the practice of typing in the APIs using the source code
as a guide is addressing the same issue legally.
Presumably that is to get around licencing on the specific jars.
The issue I was referring to was around the use of the documentation itself
(as it states in the licence: "
I think there may be some legal issues with creating an API that resembles
JMS too closely.
>From the JMS licence terms:
"Subject to the terms and conditions of this license, Sun hereby grants you
a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited
license (without the right to subl
