geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hiram Chirino <>
Subject Re: [POLL] API and Implementation serialization compatibility and upgrading
Date Tue, 17 May 2005 22:19:56 GMT
Hi David,

Yes you are right.  Our current activemq broker configuration is a bit  
simplistic.  I wish it was as easy to support complex broker  
configuration in geronimo as it is in spring.  With spring we can  
support a really rich broker configuration language see: 

The question is what's the simplest way to do something similar with  
geronimo?  I tried using the GBean approach and it took down a route  
that seemed like I was going to have to create gbean wrapper classes  
for each activemq component.  I was hoping for something more  
transparent since the ActiveMQ components are very IOCish I don't  
really see the need for extra gbean wrappers.


On May 17, 2005, at 2:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> Slow down a minute.
> I just looked at the activemq gbeans used in geronimo currently and  
> they appear to use for attributes only types from  As I  
> already indicated in a previous post, the possible problems come from  
> changing classes used as attributes and changing the GBeanInfo classes  
> themselves.  An incompatible change in GBeanInfo classes is very  
> likely to require redeployment of everything and redesign of the  
> descriptors.  Since activemq is only using standard java types as  
> gbean attributes, activemq is free to change all their classes as they  
> see fit and make none of them serializable as long as the types and  
> names of the gbean attributes remain the same.
> As far as the form of metadata needed for an IOC container, I  
> currently prefer GBeanInfo to the alternatives I am aware of.  I think  
> it's important to specify exactly what interface is presented to the  
> container, which IIUC spring does not require, and after working a lot  
> with the jboss xmlbean implementation and writing the xdoclet xmlbeans  
> plugin, I think that xml is perhaps the worst choice possible, and  
> javadoc tags not much better.
> thanks
> david jencks
> On May 16, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> Hi,
>> From the ActiveMQ viewpoint,  we would rather:
>>>   [ ]  We will do our best to ensure the implementations of our APIs  
>>> are serialization compatible to future versions of our code.
>>>   [X]  We do our best to ensure our public APIs, but use of our  
>>> implementations in such a way is not supported by us.
>> ActiveMQ standalone does not currently have these serialization  
>> issues so it's unfortunate that for us to play nice with Geronimo we  
>> would have to add on a Serialization requirement on our GBeans.  It's  
>> actually quite unfortunate that ActiveMQ even needs to implement  
>> GBeans.  It just proves that the geronimo IOC container is not  
>> transparent.  And adding the Serialization requirements makes that  
>> even worse.

View raw message