jsr368-experts@jms-spec.java.net

[jsr368-experts] Re: [jms-spec users] JMS 2.0 errata: final request for comments

From: Matthew White <WHITEMAT_at_uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:21:51 +0000

Happy with the updates.

When might the JMS2.0 errata version be available for the partners?



Regards,

Matthew B. White
Architect: IBM MQ JMS, Connectivity & Integration

Phone: 44-1962-817653
E-mail: WHITEMAT_at_uk.ibm.com
About.me: about.me/matthewbwhite
Find me on: and within IBM on:


Hursley Park
Hursley , SO212JN
United Kingdom
"The wrong answers are the ones you go looking for when the right answers
stare you in the face."





From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>
To: jsr368-experts_at_jms-spec.java.net
Date: 22/12/2014 12:21
Subject: [jms-spec users] [jsr368-experts] JMS 2.0 errata: final
request for comments



The text of each proposed change for the JMS 2.0 errata has now all been
formally recorded in JIRA and (except for some
trivial typos) circulated to this email list.

I've updated the list of issues on JMS 2.0 errata wiki page:
https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JMS20RevA#Proposed_content with
links to the text of each proposed change.

I originally planned to submit these changes to the JCP on 19th December
but to give a final opportunity for comments I
have deferred this by three weeks until Friday 9th January. Here, then, is
a final invitation to make comments on the
proposed changes.

I've updated the "proposed timescales" table at
https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JMS20RevA#Proposed_timescales
to reflect the revised plan.

Just to repeat what I've said earlier: the significant changes are

JMS_SPEC-125 Define whether a JMS provider should call reset after sending
a BytesMessage asynchronously
JMS_SPEC-155 JMS 2.0 introduced incompatible changes to
createSession(bool,int)
JMS_SPEC-157 JMS 2.0 introduced an incompatible restriction on creating
two sessions per connection in Java EE
JMS_SPEC-158 JMS 2.0 introduced incompatible changes to Connection.stop
and close and Session.close

In the latter three cases, I'm proposing to make changes to the classic
API only and leave the simplified API unchanged.
If you have views on this (especially for JMS_SPEC-158) please say so.

Nigel



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU




picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 01-part)

picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 02-part)

picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 03-part)

picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 04-part)

picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 05-part)

picture
(image/jpeg attachment: 06-part)

picture
(image/gif attachment: 07-part)