> Patches applied Thanks! Keep em coming :) Here it comes :) ... https://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1567 ... It's one big cumulative patch, if it easier for you I can break it into few separate patches.
> That sounds ok to me. Perhaps we should add a header to the legacy > frame to that folks know that the transformation failed either on the > send or subscriber side. I've added "transformation-error" header that contains a message of the exception threw. Now consumer can check for that header before it assumes that transformation took place. > The one fishy thing is that it sounds like it's being used like a > content-type. Perhaps we should make the "transformation" purely a > transient header that only controls sender / subscriber behavior. Fixed. > I'd like to work on making the default jms-xml transformation support > all the JMS message types, especially MapMessage. Now the transformer supports Object, Map and Byte messages. I've changed header semantics a bit, so instead of jms-xml we now use jmx-object-xml. Current translator supports the following header values jms-byte jms-object-xml jms-object-json jms-map-xml jms-map-json I've also renamed the class from XStreamFrameTranslator to JmsFrameTranslator, since it kind of do translation of standard jsm messages, the thing it uses XStream for that is not that important. I didn't make OXM transformer, but if there is an interest it could be easily created, just like appropriate message transformer (http://issues.apache.org/activemq/browse/AMQ-1499) * Spring support Now XStream could be configured in the application context (just as it has been used in test cases). I made a simple XStreamFactoryBean for this purpose. I think this should be complete now. I have a few minor tweaking on todo list, but they are not critical. If this is OK, I would first concentrate on the documentation. A few questions about the documentation: should this go into the specification or is it a AMQ-specific feature? If it should be documented in the protocol, should we freeze 1.0 as it is and make a 1.1 with this as extra (so that current clients could remain 1.0 compatible)? -- Dejan Bosanac www.scriptinginjava.net
