Of course, if you have the setup to test it and if see any issues, I will be happy to fix them.
Jacopo On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Agreed, most of case would have worked OOTB, but better to have a specific > name indeed. So I expect it will work now, OK thanks. > BTW, I began to study the Executor framework, interesting. > > Jacques > > From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <[email protected]> >> 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 >> >>
