Hi Jesper
On Friday 15 March 2013 12:35 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Hi Siva,
>
> On 03/14/2013 01:33 PM, Sivakumar Thyagarajan wrote:
>> The message inflow contracts would still be true for a RA delivering
>> messages to a no-methods listener interface based MDB. It is just that
>> the RAR is not limited to delivery to methods in the MLI but can make
>> calls to the MDB message listener methods.
>>
>
> My point is just we should state the same requirements in the JCA spec
I understand your point on readability, but there are some other things
to consider. Please see my comments inline.
> * Proxy implements all public business methods of the actual message
> endpoint class
The current Message Inflow contracts enable asynchronous message
delivery and through the generic MEF and MessageEndpoint interfaces
enable this delivery to any message endpoint. The MDB scenario is just
one standard example of an asynchronous message listener in the EE
platform, but the message inflow contracts are not tied to MDBs.
Therefore, the behaviour of the MDB container (as in requirements on the
proxy of the MDB that it returns as a MessageEndpoint) is best defined
in the MDB spec. Our Message Inflow spec would only describe the general
requirements that is valid for all types of MessageEndpoints (and ensure
that these requirements doesn't prevent the new MDB container requirements).
> * Proxy implements the message listener interface
This is a requirement today (second para of Section 13.5) and we will
not remove this.
> * Existing MessageEndpoint contract must be met
This is implied, because the Message Inflow contract /per se/ hasn't
changed.
Thanks
--Siva.
> Depending on people reading the EJB and JMS specs to get the full
> picture will just end bad.
>
> Best regards,
> Jesper
>