I'll take a look as soon as I can.
On 12/8/2011 9:51 AM, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> I've created the following JIRA issue to cover the work to devise a
> new simplified API.
> http://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-64
>
> The JIRA issue describes some goals for the API:
>
> * To reduce the number of objects needed to send and receive messages,
> and in particular to combine the JMS 1.1 {{Connection}}, {{Session}},
> {{MessageProducer}} and {{MessageConsumer}} objects as much as possible.
>
> * To take advantage of the fact that this is a new API to simplify
> method signatures and make other simplifications which cannot be made
> to the old API because it would break backwards compatibility.
>
> * To maintain a consistent style with the existing API where possible
> so that users of the old API feel it to be an evolution which that can
> learn quickly.
>
> * To support, and offer benefits to, both Java EE and Java SE
> applications.
>
> * To allow resource injection to be exploited in those environment
> which support it, whilst still offering significant improvements for
> those environments which do not.
>
> * To provide the option to send and receive message payloads to be
> sent and received directly without the need to use
> {{javax.jms.Message}} objects.
>
> * To remove as much as possible the need to catch {{JMSException}} on
> method calls
>
> * To be functionally complete. The old API will remain to provide
> backwards compatibility. However the new API is intended to be
> functionally as complete as the old JMS 1.1 API. Users should not need
> to switch back to the old API to perform an operation that is
> unavailable in the new API.
>
> As you know we've had quite a few discussions on this already, and as
> promised I've written up a proposal. This is described in a pdf
> document at:
> http://java.net/downloads/jms-spec/Simplified%20API/JMS20SimplifiedAPIv1.pdf
>
> with a corresponding set of javadocs at:
> java.net/projects/jms-spec/downloads/download/Simplified%20API/jms-2.0-javadoc.jar
>
>
> Please take a look and make comments.
>
> Comments are welcome on anything I've written, but I should say from
> the outset that some aspects of the proposals are further advanced
> than others. In particular I haven't suggested how we might exploit
> the new API using CDI. I hope that the proposed API makes this easier
> to achieve but I hope to have a discussion about what we might do.
>
> The proposals also suggest a simple API for sending and receiving
> message payloads directly but I think this needs some more work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4666 - Release Date: 12/07/11
>
>