Evaluate the current jms-activemq layer to

1) See whether it properly meets its intended use case, which was to provide a foundation for a web app to act as a JMS client to a remote messaging broker. The details of the application-specific interaction with the remote broker (e.g. the connection factories) were not in scope, but the basic foundations should be present.

The specific question is whether the such a layer should depend on the resource-adapters layer. An optional dependency is also a possibility.

2) See if the layer name is appropriate, given other proposed layers, e.g. WFLY-13771.

3) If a different name is better, decide whether to

a) just drop jms-activemq and replace with the new thing
b) add the new thing and make jms-activemq an alias, documented as planned for removal
c) leave jms-activemq as is, but documented as planned for removal

In all 3 cases the expectation is any other layer that depends on jms-activemq (i.e. 'cloud-server' would be updated to depend on the new thing instead. Note that 'cloud-server' already has a resource-adapters dependency, so also adding it to the messaging layer would not increase the cloud-server footprint.