Connector spec is not up for major changes in Java EE 7 timeframe - see
http://java.net/projects/ejb-spec/lists/jsr345-experts/archive/2012-03/message/9.
-marina
Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote:
> Hi Carlo,
>
> > I would rather not tie MDB's more to JMS.
>
> That discussion is really interesting. May be an opportunity to fire a
> new thread?
> I guess especially for the connector part, there are many things we
> can change.
>
> But, I don't think that's the right place.
>
> Jean-Louis
>
>
> Le 19 avril 2012 10:51, Carlo de Wolf <cdewolf_at_redhat.com
> <mailto:cdewolf_at_redhat.com>> a écrit :
>
> +1 on 1)
>
> I would rather not tie MDB's more to JMS.
> To me it would make more sense if we had a facility that allowed
> propagation of metadata into the RAR via other means.
>
> @MessageDriven
> @ConnectionFactoryJndiName("foo")
> public class MyMDB { }
>
> <message-driven>
> <jms:connection-factory-jndi-name>foo</jms:connection-factory-jndi-name>
> </message-driven>
>
> That way any type of inflow can benefit from this proposal.
>
> Carlo
>
>
> On 04/17/2012 12:41 AM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
>
> Experts,
>
> JMS 2.0 EG proposed chages to MDBs described in EJB_SPEC-43.
> Please read (if you hadn't done so) the proposed chages and
> vote on the following options at the bottom of the description:
>
> 1) New mandatory activation property connectionFactoryJndiName
> 2) New element <connection-factory-jndi-name> and
> corresponding annotation
> @MessageDriven(connectionFactoryJndiName=...
> 3) Both 1) and 2)
> 4) Neither
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
>
>