@ romain: +1 regards, gerhard
2013/3/23 Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > yes but JMS is clearly not the most used > > can't we push it for the > 1.0? > > users really wait the first 1.0 to use DS and adding JMS now simply looks > like forgetting more common use cases > > *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* > > > > 2013/3/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> > > > 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 > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
