David-
You can count me interested in discussing it (I'm from the JMS EG).
John
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:07 PM, David Blevins <david.blevins_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> Putting timeline issues aside, can we get the right people actively
> involved in the discussion?
>
> -David
>
> On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Marina Vatkina <marina.vatkina_at_oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A better example might've helped, but it can be too late now: the JCA
> spec is finishing the MR updates this week, and the JCA spec lead felt that
> it's a too big of a change for an MR update.
> >
> > -marina
> >
> > On 2/4/13 2:19 PM, Carlo de Wolf wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Talked it over with David. This is all about a more flexible way to
> specify the contract between MDB and RA. The "prompt" and "port" bits are
> just bad examples of usage and I think David will fix those up in his
> example.
> >>
> >> So at the end of the day it would just mean that the result of
> MessageEndpointFactory#createEndpoint would be an object exposing the same
> method as a no-interface view. While the bean class itself optionally gets
> set on the activation spec.
> >>
> >> I'm all in favor to get this in.
> >>
> >> Carlo
> >>
> >> On 02/04/2013 10:49 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>> Noticed the related JIRA (http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC-60)
> was marked as "Future version"
> >>>
> >>> Would be really great if we could get this in. There's been great
> support for it in the EJB over the last year and it is our 3rd most popular
> issue:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://java.net/jira/browse/EJB_SPEC#selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project%3Apopularissues-panel
> >>>
> >>> Given all the work we put in and that there will be a Connector 1.7
> after all and how small of a change it is with a big upside, I really hope
> we can get it in.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -David
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>