we could but then it wouldn't work via jms api. Typically if using jms the only custom or specific broker object is the connection factory the rest you code to Jms.
Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Jun 2017, at 04:10, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:47 PM Michael André Pearce < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Jms api dictates class set in object message to be serializable. > > > We could make an extension. It could be an extra message this actually. > >> >> >> >>> On 31 May 2017, at 22:37, Timothy Nodine <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Should the interface require the underlying class to be Serializable? >> One use case might be to provide serialization to classes that aren't >> natively serializable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael André Pearce wrote: >>>> To help discussion, >>>> A very very basic implementation just to simulate the idea. >> https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis/tree/CustomSerialisation >> < >> https://github.com/michaelandrepearce/activemq-artemis/tree/CustomSerialisation >>> >>>> >>>> n.b. doesn’t fully compile is just pseudo impl, nor doesn’t include >> bits as discussed below like map/change type to a byte message for >> compatibility, nor media type idea. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Mike >>>> >>> >> > -- > Clebert Suconic
