Hi Rudiger
If you take a look back a few email threads, the platform EG came back and
indicated that no changes to JCA were going to be addressed in EE7. The
main issue with event reception is that it requires a major overhaul to the
MDB process, . There are a couple of alternatives that I can think of that
bypass it.
1. Support an event reception model directly bridging CDI only in non-EE
contexts (e.g. an SE app could do it).
2. Support an event reception model by standardizing an MDB within JMS.
This MDB would be, for the lack of a better term, the
CDIJMSEventBridgeMessageDrivenBean. We would need to define specific
activation config to make this bean aware of config, and we would need to
define the config in ejb-jar.xml.
In theory, 1 and 2 could be addressed within the JMS API by simply saying
that it's the CDIJMSEventBridgeMessageListener, and then have an API method
for creating them (within the ConnectionFactory? Session?), in addition to
supporting bindings within ejb-jar.xml.
John
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Rüdiger zu Dohna
<ruediger.dohna_at_1und1.de>wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> one day late :-) but I've issued this:
> http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-88
>
> I actually was thinking seriously about abandoning the whole thing,
> because the simplified API is such a huge benefit already. But when I tried
> around a little bit, I found that receiving and dispatching messages is
> still rather tedious.
>
> I'd really love to hear all your comments.
>
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
> On 2012-03-21, at 19:14, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>
> Rüdiger,
>
> I would be very happy for you (or anyone else) to create a JIRA issue for
> each of these. I will then add them to the list of possible issues which I
> will ask the expert group to help prioritize for further discussion.
>
> (I've already set Friday as a "deadline" for new issues but if anyone
> needs a bit more time just let me know. I have one or two new issues myself)
>
> It would be helpful if JIRA issues contained enough technical detail to
> allow readers to understand what is being proposed without needing to
> immediately come back with a request for more information.
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> On 21/03/2012 16:04, Rüdiger zu Dohna wrote:
>
> Binding JMS to CDI events or the MessageAPI are currently out of scope,
> right?
>
> On 2012-03-16, at 15:36, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>
> Reminder: one week to go.
>
> On 12/03/2012 18:13, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>
> Now that we've reached the JMS 2.0 Early Draft stage it's time for a
> review of where we are and what additional changes we may wish to consider
> adding between now and the JMS 2.0 Public Draft in Q3 2012.
>
> If you have something in mind which is not already covered in this list,
> please log it as a new JIRA issue, and I'll add it to this list. *Please
> make any new proposals by the end of Friday 23rd March 2012*.
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>