It's a good idea.
On 12/8/2011 11:32 AM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> The following issue was raised by community member "arjan tijms"
> http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-63
>
> S/he writes:
> ---------------------------------------------
> In a Java EE environment a JMS provider is mandatory present and can
> be used without the user having to configure or setup anything.
>
> Some implementations (e.g. JBoss AS), provide by default a JMS
> connection factory for this platform provided JMS provider
> ({{java:/ConnectionFactory}} and {{java:JmsXA}}), yet in other
> implementations (e.g. GlassFish) users have to create a connection
> factory themselves.
>
> I would like to propose to formally introduce the concept of a
> _platform default JMS connection factory_ and make this available
> under some portable JNDI name (e.g. {{java:/JmsConnectionFactory}}).
> The exact configuration of this factory should be an implementation
> detail, but the spirit of the specification should be that it must not
> be purposely crippled and should be principally intended for
> production use.
>
> Besides shielding users from having to create a connection factory, an
> additional benefit might be that other platform JMS facilities that
> otherwise would need an explicit reference to a connection factory,
> could default to this standard connection factory.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> I think this is a good idea. In addition to simplifying deployment it
> might also make it useful in conjunction with the proposed simplified
> API, since it would make it easier to define default behaviour when
> MessagingContext objects were injected.
>
> (I think both Ruediger and John suggested this as well)
>
> Any comments? This would probably need to be put into the Java EE
> platform spec, so I'll ask what the Java EE spec leads think as well.
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4674 - Release Date: 12/11/11
>
>