deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Porter <lightguard...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324
Date Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:57:52 GMT
As much as I want to see JMS added, I agree it should be after 1.0. We need
to get this pushed out.


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Gerhard Petracek <
gerhard.petracek@gmail.com> wrote:

> @ romain: +1
>
> regards,
> gerhard
>
>
> 2013/3/23 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>
> > yes but JMS is clearly not the most used
> >
> > can't we push it for the > 1.0?
> >
> > users really wait the first 1.0 to use DS and adding JMS now simply looks
> > like forgetting more common use cases
> >
> > *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/3/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
> >
> > > hi @ all,
> > >
> > > imo it's more a basic question.
> > > if we do it for jms 2, we also have to (/should) do it for other
> > > specifications like bv 1.1
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > gerhard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/3/21 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Ill rephrase a bit. I m rather -0 about it and -1 since a lot of
> others
> > > > stuff are needed before.
> > > > Le 21 mars 2013 22:50, "Arne Limburg" <arne.limburg@openknowledge.de
> >
> > a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > We should find out if one can simply use a JMS 2.0 implementation
> and
> > > put
> > > > > it into an deployment. If that will be possible, we would not need
> to
> > > > > implement it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Arne
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 21.03.13 22:34 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <struberg@yahoo.de
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I tend to lean towards +1 simply because EE-7 containers will
take
> > > > > >another year (or 2) to become used in projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I just think we should first close a few tasks before we open
new
> > > ones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >LieGrue,
> > > > > >strub
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> From: John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >> Cc:
> > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:09 PM
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Romain,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Generally, I'm mixed about these.  However I think there's
some
> > > pretty
> > > > > >> good
> > > > > >> benefits.  For an application developer, maybe none of the
other
> > > JMS 2
> > > > > >> features are useful to you (the bulk of the feature went
into
> CDI
> > > > > >>support,
> > > > > >> app server integration, and documentation clean up).  You
don't
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > >> move off of TomEE 1.5.x to TomEE Y (which could support
Java EE
> 7
> > > Web
> > > > > >> Profile) due to downtime in your application.  There's also
lead
> > > time
> > > > > >> required to impelement JMS 2/Java EE 7 features in your
> > application
> > > > > >>server,
> > > > > >> but perhaps you don't want to or need to wait for the whole
> thing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This solution would be DS oriented, I believe requires
> > > > TransactionScoped
> > > > > >> (which could require the transaction classes be moved away
from
> > > > > >> persistence) to operate properly.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There's also the case of using DeltaSpike as your CDI-JMS
> > > > > >>implementation if
> > > > > >> you were a JMS implementer.  I haven't reached out to
> communities
> > > such
> > > > > >>as
> > > > > >> Apache ActiveMQ or HornetQ to see input here; I know the
current
> > > > > >>GlassFish
> > > > > >> implementation calls their lower level directly (and not
by
> > wrapping
> > > > the
> > > > > >> JMS APIs).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> John
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > >> <rmannibucau@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>  Hi
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  i'm globally -1 for redoing something which will exist
> somewhere
> > > > else
> > > > > >>>  (basically if somebody wants JavaEE just let him use
JavaEE,
> CDI
> > > > > >> doesn't
> > > > > >>>  need the full stack IMO). Was my point for JPA, more
again on
> > JMS.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  It is great to add feature before the specs not once
it is (or
> > > > almost)
> > > > > >>>  done.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  Maybe i didnt fully get what you want to do so maybe
share
> some
> > > > > >>>pastebin to
> > > > > >>>  be sure we speak about the same stuff.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  *Romain Manni-Bucau*
> > > > > >>>  *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>*
> > > > > >>>  *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*<
> > > > > >>>  http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > >>>  *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau*
> > > > > >>>  *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau*
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  2013/3/21 John D. Ament <john.d.ament@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>  > All,
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > I'd like to open the floor to discussion for porting
JMS 2
> > > > > >> features to
> > > > > >>>  > DeltaSpike, specifically the features that added
some CDI
> > > > > >>>capabilities
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >>>  > JMS.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > Details of my rough proposal are here:
> > > > > >>>  > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-324
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > Importing these features start to deprecate functionality
in
> > > Seam
> > > > > >>>JMS
> > > > > >>>  > (ideal).  These features would give access to
an API very
> > > similar
> > > > > >>>to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>  > JMS2 API around CDI injection.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > Some limitations:
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > - This would not be a JMS implementation, simply
an inspired
> > > > > >>>interface
> > > > > >>>  for
> > > > > >>>  > use in Java EE 6/JMS 1.x that leveraged CDI injection
based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > >> rules
> > > > > >>>  > for CDI injection of these interfaces.  We would
bring in
> very
> > > > > >>>similar
> > > > > >>>  > annotations that supported the injection of the
three target
> > > > types.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > - Cannot use the exact interface, since the interface
> > implements
> > > > > >>>  > AutoCloseable which is a Java SE 7 interface.
 DeltaSpike
> uses
> > > > Java
> > > > > >>>SE
> > > > > >> 6
> > > > > >>>  > for a compiler.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > - Internally these would have to use the current
JMS
> > interfaces
> > > of
> > > > > >>>  > connection, session.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > - Testing would be feasible but require a full
Java EE
> > container
> > > > > >>>(e.g.
> > > > > >> no
> > > > > >>>  > testing in Weld/OWB directly) that supported deployment
of
> > > > > >> destinations
> > > > > >>>  at
> > > > > >>>  > runtime.  Since this doesn't touch MDBs we can
manually read
> > > from
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >>>  > destination.
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>  > John
> > > > > >>>  >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Jason Porter
http://en.gravatar.com/lightguardjp

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message