I'm still open to any comments or idea on this one. I did create PRs for option 2 below for both master and the tomee-1.7.x branches.
Any feedback on those would also be most welcome. Thanks Jon On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jonathan Gallimore < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > We recently added support for controlling MDB endpoint activation using > the MdbActiveOnStartup and MdbJMXControl deployment properties - so you'd > add something like this to openejb-jar.xml: > > <ejb-deployment ejb-name="MyEjb"> > <properties> > MdbActiveOnStartup = true > MdbJMXControl = true > </properties> > </ejb-deployment> > > This works great, but the trouble is, you need to provide these properties > for every single MDB, which if you have a lot of them, is a pain. For > activation properties, we have the means to specify a setting using the > mdb.activation.[property]=[value] system property, which will apply to > all MDBs, unless those MDBs specify that activation property themselves. It > would be great if this worked the same way. > > I'm wondering what the community thinks - I have a couple of ideas: > > 1. Allow EJB deployment properties to have overrides in the same way that > activation properties do. This might mean adding similar logic > to org.apache.openejb.config.BeanProperties from org.apache.openejb. > config.ActivationConfigPropertyOverride (or add a new DynamicDeployer) > 2. Change the MdbActiveOnStartup / MdbJMXControl feature to activation > properties. These can still be specified in openejb-jar.xml: > > <ejb-deployment ejb-name="MyEjb"> > <properties> > activation.MdbActiveOnStartup = true > activation.MdbJMXControl = true > </properties> > </ejb-deployment> > > but would also allow the setting to be configured for all beans through > the existing method: > > mdb.activation.MdbActiveOnStartup=true > mdb.activation. MdbJMXControl =true > > Given that this config hasn't appeared in a released version yet, now > might be a good time to change it. > > What do you think? I think I'm leaning towards option 2 at the moment. I'd > appreciate any thoughts, or alternative ideas. I'm happy to propose the > code change for review whichever way we go. > > Cheers > > Jon >
