Guys, is there any interest in this feature? (I hoped to get a heated
discussion while I was on vacation ;) ).
-marina
Marina Vatkina wrote:
> Very interesting. These would indeed require very limited changes to
> the JCA spec (if any).
>
> What do others think about David's proposal?
>
> David,
>
> Couple of questions/comments:
>
> 1. Can you change your example to call createEndpoint() just before
> the connector calls the bean method (and release the instance after
> the call)? This will fit much better with the existing rules on the
> MDB lifecycle (and reduce the amount of changes)?
>
> 2. Can we skip the marker interface altogether? If there is no
> implementing interface, it's a no-interface view. Plain and simple.
>
> 3. Use the "beanClass" instead of the "ejbClass" for the property name?
>
> thanks,
> -marina
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> Here is a better description of the revamped proposal.
>>
>> https://github.com/dblevins/mdb-improvements
>>
>> Note, this has nothing to do with JMS or JMS 2.0. This Connector/MDB
>> enhancement has merit in its own right.
>>
>> The proposed enhancement is at the bottom of the page:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/dblevins/mdb-improvements#message-driven-beans-tomorrow
>>
>>
>> The example comes with a working Telnet Connector that can be run via
>> Arquillian. Just hacked it up to demonstrate a non-asynchronous
>> mindset and show the potential of what is already there and can be
>> done today. Generally to get the creative juices flowing. Should
>> run in any server.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/dblevins/mdb-improvements/blob/master/mdb-today/src/test/java/Runner.java
>>
>>
>> I think we can get a lot of bang for such a small tweak. For all of
>> us with existing MDB Containers, this should be very easy to slot
>> in. Low impact, high value.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>>