Regardless of it is a bad way to go or not, it seems worth tabling for
discussion. At least I am interested in hearing about it and how it would be
different/better/worse than CDI events. MDBs are in EJB so improving them
and making them easier to use is in scope IMO.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir_at_bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
> I think this would be a bad direction to go in. I think concentrating on
> bridging JMS to CDI events would be far more powerful. I'm happy to bring a
> proposal to the group if that helps, though I think this is a topic better
> for the JMS EG.
>
> On 12 Sep 2011, at 20:07, Reza Rahman wrote:
>
> > Marina,
> >
> > I'm a bit tied up at the moment and this could be a lengthy discussion.
> I'll get a detailed proposal to you by tomorrow evening at the latest.
> >
> > The gist of it is basically decoupling message listeners from
> @MessageDriven so that messages may be consumed by any managed bean method
> (perhaps even a Servlet). I'd also like to see two distinct types of
> listeners -- one specific to JMS and another more generic for JCA. Each
> listener type would also have some powerful DI based features (such as
> automatically unwrapping message payloads, mapping headers to method
> parameters and so on). This is something we designed for Resin but have not
> yet implemented. We do feel is very doable and would be a good
> "modernization" of MDB.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reza
> >
> >
> > On 9/12/2011 6:21 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> >> Reza,
> >>
> >> There is a plan (stay tuned) to make CMTs available outside EJBs. But
> how does it affect MDBs in the EJB container?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> -marina
> >>
> >> Reza Rahman wrote:
> >>> Marina,
> >>>
> >>> I think it's hard to have this discussion without starting to talk
> about decoupling transactions (and other services) from the EJB component
> model. Did you still want to have this discussion now?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Reza
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 9/9/2011 9:11 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> >>>> Experts,
> >>>>
> >>>> Does any of you have a wish-list for the MDB improvements in the EJB
> spec? This should be a purely EJB related changes, as the JMS 2.0 EG is
> looking carefully at the overall JMS revamp.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks,
> >>>> -marina
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----
> >>>> No virus found in this message.
> >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>>> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3886 - Release Date:
> 09/09/11
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3893 - Release Date: 09/12/11
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
--
*Rick Hightower*
(415) 968-9037
Profile <http://www.google.com/profiles/RichardHightower>