The only concern I have with this is the multiple jar and getting it setup correctly from a user's point of view. If this is clearly and neatly laid out in the docs, then it shouldn't be a problem. Sorry for the tardiness of this email.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 19:57, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > Gents, > > I've been working diligently (whenever I have time) to get the seam JMS > module up and running on the new test suite format. One thing I've noticed > is that because of the caveats of using JMS In SE vs. EE, it didn't just > work to run weld ee embedded and within a container tests by themselves. It > also became clear that in general this wouldn't work outside of a container > because of differences in how to start open mq vs. hornetq vs. activemq. > Even working in a remote JNDI provider (similar to how weblogic JMS works) > it wouldn't have worked quite right. > > Soemthing I started a while ago (maybe 4-5 weeks) was to separate various > impls to different modules. I want to go ahead and move forward with this > approach. This would provide the main api and impl (across all impls) as > well as a domain specific impl (e.g. seam-jms-ee-impl) that contains > functionality for EE environments. As a result, when running the test > suite, you are verifying the api, impl, the domain specific impl and the > test suite for that specific combination. > > Does anyone have any concerns with this approach? > > John > > _______________________________________________ > seam-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev > > -- Jason Porter http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/lightguardjp Software Engineer Open Source Advocate Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling PGP key id: 926CCFF5 PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
