On Jan 26, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Andy Gumbrecht wrote:
I would prefer something like
openejb:activemq5:broker:(...)
or
openejb:activemq4:broker:(...)
Would like to get your opinion?
Thanks a lot for the great contribution.
Jean-Louis
[...]
static final private FactoryFinder brokerFactoryHandlerFinder
= new FactoryFinder("META-INF/services/org/apache/activemq/broker/");
It (the implementation) then looks for a properties file at 'META-
INF/services/org/apache/activemq/broker/[openejb5]'
which it splits (using ':') from the broker URL.
The property files simply contain the BrokerFactoryHandler class
names.
We could change/rename the property file names to
'openejb.activemq5' and 'openejb.activemq4' for example (any valid
file name will do).
ActiveMQFactory.getBrokerMetaFile() would just need to return the
correct prefix/filename.
The URL would be - openejb.activemq5:broker:(...)
The property file would then be - 'META-INF/services/org/apache/
activemq/broker/openejb.activemq5'
Right, exactly. Was just going to post that. That prefix works just
fine. Or even just "amq4factory" and "amq5factory" or something.
Anyway, on the openejb-legacy concept, let's go with a tight and
focused openejb-activemq4 module. I've done the bucket "legacy" thing
before and doesn't play out well over years. Ends up a "junk drawer"
that no one ever cleans out.
On the test case front, I wonder if we can simply add a TestSuite that
pulls in all the tests we want to run in the openejb-activemq4 module?
-David
