I was out of the office thursday/friday last week so I'm just joining this discussion now but after reading everything I guess I'm confused of what the benefit is here. I kind of agree with Tim Bish on this one.
Yes we could certainly make the read/write object pluggable on the connection factory but is that really that beneficial? Why can't a user just use their own custom serializer to serialize to bytes before sending it as a bytes message? I'm not going to prevent the feature from being added if people want it I just don't know that it is necessary. On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
