Hi,
On 01/23/2013 02:49 PM, Sivakumar Thyagarajan wrote:
> 1. Providing an ActivationName to the RA (CONNECTOR_SPEC-1):
> We have two choices:
> - Choice #1: Introduce MessageEndpointFactory.getActivationName, and
> have the JMS RA use them.
> - Choice #2a: Upgrade or extend the MEF interface (for instance
> introduce a new
> ActivationNameMessageEndpointFactory that extends MessageEndpointFactory
> and adds a method String getActivationName()). JMS spec must be required
> to pass in instances ActivationNameMessageEndpointFactory for JMS
> MessageEndpoints, and the JMS RA uses the
> ActivationNameMessageEndpointFactory to get the activation name.
>
> ACTION: Please state your choice or alternative ideas.
>
Choice 2:
public interface NamedMessageEndpointFactory extends MessageEndpointFactory
{
/**
* Get the activation name of the message endpoint factory
* @return The value
* @exception ResourceException Thrown in case an internal occurs
* in the message endpoint factory
*/
public String getActivationName() throws ResourceException;
}
> 2. Resource Definition Annotations:
> There has been discussions on how a resource adapter name could be used
> to identify a deployment of a RAR, and how such Resource Definition
> annotations can be used in a portable manner in most development
> usecases. We have also discussed some vendor-specific concerns on these.
>
> ACTION: Could you share your inputs
> on those discussions and whether we should defer them? If your choice is
> to defer, please state what technical reasons are there to defer them,
> and in particular what additional information that we don't have today
> would be gained if we defer to a future release.
>
Defer.
The current suggestion relies on an 'all-is-default-and-by-spec-only'
scenario.
Vendor specific properties for the deployment maybe mandatory, and the
implicit rules used may not align against the vendor best practice
deployment model.
This will lead to overrides has to be able to be managed out the way
"out": web.xml, vendor specific web.xml and so on. This is confusing for
the developer.
Having deployment annotations that doesn't depend on implicit rules
would be a better solution.
Best regards,
Jesper