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 <rmannibu...@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.limb...@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 <strub...@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.am...@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 > > >> <rmannibu...@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.am...@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 > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
