On Dec 2, 2007 12:05 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > > A generic base class for [posting to a JMS destination], > > > with an abstract createMessage method, would let people > > > create their own subclass to provide whatever ad-hoc JMS > > > message they desire. > > > i'd prefer delegation to inheritance > > Delegate to a message factory, and provide a <message-factory> element? > <<shrug>>
yeh (one reason is that it fits better for XML over SMTP) > > > An effort of a few moments to code it, leaving configuring JNDI is an > > > exercise for the reader. > > > probably better to use a generic messaging interface and push JNDI or > > local brokering behind it. same interface can then be used for any > > MOM. > > To post from JMS has certain requirements. We just need to satisfy them. I > would be happy if we were to annotations and container managed DI. That > would be a worthwhile project, and improvement to the Mailet API. local broker is powerful: the configuration and bridging are pushed onto the broker but there's no reason not to support both (provided developers step up) > > efficient operation is a little more effort: session and connection > > caching would be are needed for high throughput. commons pool would be > > good enough. > > Keeping in mind the fact that there is a single mailet instance, and it has > reentrancy requirements. :-) another reason for pushing the JMS behind an interface. but the latest releases of commons pool should be good enough so it's definied toable and should be reasonably self-contained. but yes, a nice little project if any contributor (new or old) wants to volunteer to implement. it'd lead on to some cool stuff like geronimo integration and using JAMES as SMTP transport layer for ActiveMQ (if anyone's interested in that). - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
