geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Monson-Haefel <Rich...@Monson-Haefel.com>
Subject Re: MDB support
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:04:12 GMT
Yes, I agree. That's a solution you can use to get your unit tests in place,
because it allows you to control the delivery of messages and the
interaction between the faux JCA resource and the MDB container.  I guess I
was talking about a production system. Still, the MDB container itself
should be designed to adhere to the JCA message-delivery contract even if
the resource you are using is designed purely for testing. Did I understand
your post, or am I off on a tangent?

Richard
-- 
Richard Monson-Haefel
Co-Founder\Developer, Apache Geronimo
Author of:
  J2EE Web Services (AW 2003)
  Enterprise JavaBeans, 4ed (O'Reilly 2004)
  Java Message Service (O'Reilly 2000)
http://www.Monson-Haefel.com


On 9/26/03 2:01 AM, "David Jencks" <davidjencks@snappydsl.net> wrote:

> Yes, but James can probably write an mbean that uses the jca 1.5
> message delivery contracts and starts the tx appropriately with just
> the WorkManager implemented.  I did this with the JBoss 4.0 jca 1.5
> support testcases until I wrote the jca 1.5 deployment stuff.  I.e.,
> don't use actual jms, just fake the message delivery part of an adapter.
> 
> BTW my opinion ATM is that mdbs don't need an instance pool, the jca
> 1.5 inbound adapter does that work.  All you need is to create
> MessageEndpoints as requested up to the maximum number you want...
> 
> /**********************************
> * David Jencks
> * Partner
> * Core Developers Network
> * http://www.coredevelopers.net
> **********************************/
> 
> 
> On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 11:51 PM, Richard Monson-Haefel
> wrote:
> 
>> On 9/25/03 12:23 PM, in article
>> F5B100B7-EF7C-11D7-9F7C-000A959D0312@yahoo.co.uk, "James Strachan"
>> <james_strachan@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Once we can deploy stateless SBs then I'd have thought doing MDBs
>>> should be similar yes? Basically I was just gonna do something
>>> extremely simple for now - write  a  dummy little JMS subscriber MBean
>>> that can mock the JCA connection manager until the JCA part is ready,
>>> and then get some MDBs working. Then folks could try hooking the mail
>>> stuff into the same MDB service.
>>> 
>>> So does this all sound like a reasonable plan? Anyone working on this
>>> stuff or on the EJB side of things care to correct any of my mistaken
>>> assumptions.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure that your stop-gap solution won't work because I
>> worked on
>> this problem almost exactly two years ago - before JCA 1.5. The
>> following
>> explains the problem with using the JMS API as a "moch" connector for
>> Message Driven Beans. It's kind of complicated.




Mime
View raw message