John,
On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
>> There was a suggestion on the list to force all JMS implementations run in plain
>> Java SE. I don't think that's a good thing to require from all providers, as they
>> now can simply rely on a lot of their infrastructure.
> +1.
>
> I'm not too sure what this means to be honest. If the issue is that a JMS
> implementation should be bootable in an SE environment, then yes I think that should be
> included. What that actually boots (e.g. a full web container, EJB container, CDI
> container, etc) will vary.
>
I was one of the proponents of the Java SE suggestion so maybe I should explain a bit. The
majority of our customers use the JMS API outside of any sort of container. Tying the JMS
2.0 API to something outside of Java SE would not be well received by those customers.
Requiring them to install, run and manage an App Server just so that their standalone apps
can continue to work is not going to fly for them.
I don't know what is involved in implementing Dependency Injection but if it can be done
in a way such that folks can continue to write, build and run Java SE apps then that of
course would be fine.
Regards,
Adrian.
--
Adrian Johnson
TIBCO Software Inc
ad_at_tibco.com