On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Mike Edwards
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> The only Tuscany user I know of who uses OSGi and the JMS binding does
>>> it by having their own custom JMSResourceFactory impl. If its a
>>> problem I'd be happy to help add a new module to plug in a custom
>>> JMSResourceFactory as that seems a much better approach than adding
>>> ActiveMQ specific code to the current module.
>>>
>>> Another approach that might be worth looking at to help get started
>>> would be to use a JMS broker running as a separate process to the OSGi
>>> container. That way to start with you just have to deal with getting
>>> Tuscany running in OSGi without needing to deal with how to get JMS
>>> working in OSGi. There's an itest that shows doing that:
>>> testing/itest/jms/externalBroker. You still have the issue of loading
>>> the InitialContextFactory class, but if the approach suggested by
>>> Ramond works then it sounds like thats solvable too.
>>>
>>>    ...ant
>>>
>> Ant,
>>
>> Perhaps you're right and ultimately we shall need to create a whole new
>> module binding-jms-runtime-osgi (or something like that).
>>
>> However, I'm not sure that we yet know what needs to be in that module -
>> we're just getting this working under OSGi for the first time and I can't
>> predict what might need tweaking/changing.
>>
>> So for the moment, I'll commit an initial set of changes that do get things
>> working under OSGi while still getting us a clean build when not running
>> under OSGi.  We can iterate away from that.
>> The amount of changed code is not large.
>>
>>
>> Yours,  Mike.
>>
>
> Ok fine, i'll help by putting that into a separate ActiveMQ specific
> module then.
>
>   ...ant
>

I've added a new module, binding-jms-runtime-activemq, which has a new
ActiveMQ specific JMSResourceFactory impl that overrides the JMS
binding default one when both modules are used. Would you use that for
adding the ActiveMQ specific code?

   ...ant

Reply via email to