That was just a 5 min code. I agree with you.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM Michael André Pearce < [email protected]> wrote: > Re black and white looking at your gist, that's specific to Java > serialisation, I don't think that should be in the interface like it is > maybe a more generic configure(properties) as for other impls they may need > other config options (as in Avro would need to configure schema reg url). > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 2 Jun 2017, at 21:06, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > What about a mixed approach. > > > > We make Artemis as a plugin. And you use it as plug on anywhere else. > > > > I like the plugin approach as it would clean up the code on black and > white > > list anyways. > > > > Then the plug in implementation for avro could live on this new Repo. > > > > If at a later point u need to use a repo that doesn't support the plug in > > approach you use the facade doing the proxy ? > > > > > > Perhaps we could talk over IRC next week. I'm taking Monday of. So I > would > > be available Tuesday. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM Michael André Pearce < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I'd rather go with something more people are happy with (or at least a > >> little more happier about) > >> > >> I'm not 100% sure if I have fully read the feelings right, but it seems > >> Tim is a little more happy with maybe us making some jms extension area > >> that we put this and move the connection pool factory to also, as > plug-on > >> rather than as plug-in. And seems this is not suited for camel to own > but > >> maybe activemq, but as maybe a sub project rather than a module of > >> activemq5, or a module of artemis. > >> > >> For me this solution does work, and allows it to work for any jms impl, > >> e.g. It would be fairly important to be able to use qpid jms client and > >> artemis client with it if using components in some places like qpid > router, > >> meaning you have to use qpid jms. > >> > >> I agree it would be much better if there was a chance to have it in a > >> 2.0.2 jms spec. > >> > >> Are you against this idea? @clebert? @tim have I understood your > feelings > >> correctly? > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On 2 Jun 2017, at 20:29, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Michael André Pearce > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> I agree i much the original proposal to make it a plugin interface, > but > >> would want also buy-in on the qpid jms client also. > >>> > >>> I'm just proposing one thing at the time. > >>> > >>> After everything is cleared in JMS terms, we can verify what to do > next. > >>> > >>> > >>> If the JSR was still alive.. I would propose this as an addition on the > >> JSR. > >> > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > -- Clebert Suconic
