I've yet to see a non-JMS MDB in the real world in 10+ years, so I
really do question the actual value of this mode of thinking....
On 4/19/2012 12:15 PM, Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Hmmm.... You all agreed to the proposed changes in
> http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-42 which will add
>
> @MessageDriven(messageDestinationLookup="jms/inboundQueue")
>
> and
>
> @MessageDriven(messageDestinationLink="ExpenseProcessingQueue")
>
> -marina
>
> Florent BENOIT wrote:
>> +1 for MDB not tied to JMS
>>
>>
>> On 04/19/2012 10:51 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:
>>> +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
>>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4946 - Release Date: 04/19/12
>
>