cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: Proposal for a new JMS configuration for CXF
Date Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:51:50 GMT
Hi Willem,

after completing the change to Spring JMS for the JMS transport I will 
now tackle the configuration problem again.

I would also recommend thinking about a broader change of configuration 
style. But I am unsure how to really do it. Can you elaborate a little 
further how you would add the TransportConfig to the endpoint?
I would like to be able to configure the TransportConfig in the spring 
client or endpoint definition definition. Where would I add the property 
and how would I transport this information to the Conduit.
The current configs are added to the EndpointInfo from WSDL or Conduit / 
Destination definitions. How would I connect this when the config is 
added to client or endpoint?

I think we could introduce the new config style in parallel for 2.x and 
if it is better than the current config could turn this off in 3.0. In 
the JMS transport I have prepared all to be able to do this.



Willem Jiang schrieb:
> Hi Christian,
> +1 for introducing the Camel style URL for the JMS configuration.
> In Camel, you just need to specify the jms component's connection 
> factory, then the JMS component can take care of  the URL itself.
> In you proposal , we need to add a TransportConfig element for the 
> endpoint which could contain the Transport specified configuration for 
> the JMSConduit or JMSDestination.
> I think we could go further, as you know for the HttpJettyDestination 
> , there need to do some configuration for JettyServerEngine which is 
> also a transport level configuration.
> We could also set the URLConnection factory for the HttpConduit in 
> this way.
> Since most current CXF configration are based on parser an XML to Java 
> Object by JAXB and few Spring style bean class injection.
> If we introduce the TransportConfig element and lots of transport 
> configuration could be changed.
> Maybe we can do this in CXF 3.0.
> Any thoughts?
> Willem


Christian Schneider

View raw message