Sounds really intressting to me.. I never used JMS so im not a big help
here :-/

bye
Norman

Am Sonntag, den 02.12.2007, 08:12 +0000 schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin:
> 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]
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to