activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jhakim <jawaid.ha...@codestreet.com>
Subject Re: Nested MapMessage
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:47:53 GMT

Clearly both setObject(name, map) and setObject(name, mapMsg) work. As you
correctly point out, using a hierarchical naming scheme would allow the
client to specify nesting and works with any MOM.

However, I would argue that forcing clients to write code to create/parse a
hierarchical naming scheme defeats the key goal of ease of use.

For instance, suppose one wants to create a framework for marshaling
arbitrary beans to JMS messages. A logical implmentation would be to use
reflection to discover bean properties and create a corresponding
MapMessage. Now, suppose that a bean contains other beans as properties. One
elegant approach would to marshal each bean property to a  nested
MapMessage. This exact strategy is used by many systems on Wall Street and
by open-source projects (messageforge.sourceforge.net).

BTW - the underlying JMS provider can, beneath the covers, use hierarchical
naming schemes and strip off properties from nested messages. As far as the
client is concerned, this should just be an implementation detail and not
the required way for clients to use the MOM.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Nested-MapMessage-t1788442.html#a4902932
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev forum at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message