geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Created: (GERONIMO-2135) Improve the ActiveMQ GBeans
Date Mon, 19 Jun 2006 02:32:29 GMT
Improve the ActiveMQ GBeans

         Key: GERONIMO-2135
     Project: Geronimo
        Type: Improvement
    Security: public (Regular issues) 
  Components: ActiveMQ  
    Reporter: Hiram Chirino
 Assigned to: Hiram Chirino 
     Fix For: 1.2

Suggestions by David Jencks:

I think that this gbean adaptation code should be in geronimo rather
than amq.  I'm OK with applying it as is but would prefer some issues
to be addressed first or, even better,  immediately after the
transfer (assuming it is done with svn mv).

1. DataSourceReference should be replaced by the geronimo class that
does the same thing, ConnectionFactorySource.

2. I think it would be preferable to get the module/configuration
classloader in the constructor as a magic attribute and use it in
BrokerServiceGBeanImpl.doStart rather than the classloader of

3. Same for TransportConnectorGBeanImpl.

4. This is a question, not really an issue, about this code:
+    protected TransportConnector createBrokerConnector(String url)
throws Exception {
+        return brokerService.getBrokerContainer().addConnector(url);
+    }

To me it seems like this code is combining the functions of factory
object and container.  Is this necessary and appropriate?  I'd be
more comfortable with
Connector connector = ConnectorFactory.createConnector(url);

I find that the combination style typically creates problems whenever
trying to extend stuff, say by wrapping the connector.  What do you

5. hardcoding the protocols in ActiveMQManagerGBean seems like a
temporary expedient at best.

6. javadoc on public JMSConnector addConnector( ... in the manager
gbean seems wrong... does not appear to return an object name.

7. Typo and innaccuracies in the first package.html... this stuff is
only going to work in geronimo, jsr77/88 is not enough.

8. I'm not sure exactly what our official policy is but I prefer to
remove "public" from methods in interfaces since it is the only
choice and implied.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message