No, I didn't. But the NPE that was initially reported was actually caused by an issue in the construction mechanism of the ServiceDispatcher/GenericDispatcher classes and this is fixed by my recent refactoring; I believe that the error should not happen again (and changing the name from JMSDispatcher to "entity-default" was really a wrong way to fix it, because it was simply working if the "entity-default" dispatcher exists... and this may depend on how the system is configured).
Jacopo On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > In r1364222 I saw you changed back the name of the AbstractJmsListener to > JMSDispatcher. Did you check if it works when you set a jms-service in > serviceengine.xml, like with DCC? > > Jacques > > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[email protected]> >> On Jul 20, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Adrian Crum wrote: >> >>> I agree there is a lot of feature envy between classes. The API could be >>> cleaned up a lot. >>> >>> From my perspective, the GenericDispatcher.getLocalDispatcher method should >>> not exist - since it forces you to reference an >>> implementation. Instead, there should be a separate service dispatcher >>> factory. >> >> I agree this is the right direction to go. >> >> In rev. 1364222, I did a first pass cleanup of the code in the >> DispatchContext and in the methods related to the >> creation/retrieval of ServiceDispatcher/GenericDispatcher objects; this >> should simplify the refactoring of the API and now the >> code is a bit cleaner and more readable. >> Since this first pass is quite relevant in terms of code changes >> (unfortunately I couldn't find a better way to split these in >> more commits) I would really appreciate your reviews and bug reports (if >> any) and also your patience if you will find issues >> caused by this change: I will do my best to fix them asap. >> >> Jacopo
