geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino (JIRA)" <...@geronimo.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Resolved: (GERONIMO-2135) Improve the ActiveMQ GBeans
Date Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:13:30 GMT
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2135?page=all ]
     
Hiram Chirino resolved GERONIMO-2135:
-------------------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed

thanks for the review guys. patch is applied now.

> Improve the ActiveMQ GBeans
> ---------------------------
>
>          Key: GERONIMO-2135
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2135
>      Project: Geronimo
>         Type: Improvement
>     Security: public(Regular issues) 
>   Components: ActiveMQ
>     Reporter: Hiram Chirino
>     Assignee: Hiram Chirino
>      Fix For: 1.2
>  Attachments: GERONIMO-2135.patch
>
> 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
> BrokerServiceGBeanImpl.
> 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);
> brokerService.getBrokerContainer().addConnector(connector);
> I find that the combination style typically creates problems whenever
> trying to extend stuff, say by wrapping the connector.  What do you
> think?
> 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:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message