I don't like the current name either, but haven't a better one just yet (its not actually using activemq right now) and its going to change again soon when we try to merge the ResourceFactory plugability in to it too, so, i decided not to worry about it for the time being as really i'd like to end up not requiring that module but instead have the code thats in it be in the default for the jms binding and you only need a separate jms host when you want to override the default.
...ant On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > Good move. Thanks for doing it. > > One minor suggestion: would it be better to name it as host-jms-activemq > instead of host-jms-asf? > > Thanks, > Raymond > > *From:* ant elder <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:09 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* JMS Binding and host-jms > > In r738502 i've committed some initial support to the JMS binding to use a > JMS Host module for the service listener to enable plugging in runtime > specific JMS listeners. > > There are two new modules, host-jms which has the extension point > interfaces, and host-jms-asf which is a default implementation using the > same un-managed JMS listener that used to be in the binding-jms-runtime > module. This isn't particular engineered yet, the interfaces are just what > fell out when refactoring out the code but it shows whats needed and lets us > try it out. There's some tidy up to do, i'd like to merge the JMS > ResourceFactory discovery to also be part of the host-jms module and also > maybe merge the default host-jms impl into the one host-jms module and have > that used by default if there is no jms host contributed, but for now to > make the changes more simple and clear i've not done that. > > ...ant > > > > >
