How about till what ever changes happen in the future call it host-jms-default?
...ant On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:16 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >
