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> 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
>>
>
>