activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: Nested MapMessage
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:01:17 GMT
On 6/16/06, jhakim <> wrote:
> 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 (
> 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.

Agreed. Obviously if you have a nested array of beans you can
obviously use ObjectMessage too - but I totally understand the
motivation for having a typesafe hierarchial MapMessage that other
languages can parse too.

I've created an issue to track this feature request


View raw message