On 17/02/2012 18:13, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>
> On 14/02/2012 17:17, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>>
>> In the course of working on the Early Draft a number of issues have come to mind, or have been brought to my attention.
>> We don't necessarily need to resolve all these issues before the early draft. For the "major issues" below it might be
>> better if we left things as they are and asked for comments. The the "minor issues" below are more straightforward and I
>> am tempted to try to address them before the early draft.
>>
>
> I've made a few small changes to the early draft to address the relatively minor issues I raised in this email. Here's a
> summary.
>
> A few comments have come in whilst I've been writing this, which I'll respond to separately (otherwise I'll never manage
> to send this email)
>
>>
>> MAJOR ISSUES
>> ============
>>
>> * Simplified API: How should message consumers be represented?
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (snip)
>
>> * Injecting a MessagingContext
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Do we need to define what the lifecycle (scope) of the underlying MessagingContext is? If so, how should this be
>> specified?
> (snip)
>
>> * Batch message delivery
>> ------------------------
>
> (snip)
>
> I *haven't* made any changes to address these issues. We've been discussing these three issues and I think the
> discussion needs to continue. I'm not sure we need to delay the Early Draft until we resolve them.
I've now added a new section to the early draft which describes these three issues. This is A2 "Unresolved issues in the
JMS 2.0 Early Draft". It doesn't make any new proposals but simply captures the discussion we've had so far.
http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/sources/repository/content/jms2.0/specification/word/JMS20.pdf
The purpose of this section is simply to acknowledge that the spec needs more work in these areas and invite community
feedback. I intend to remove this section when these issues are resolved.
With this done, I intend to move forward and formally publish this as the Early Draft and invite comments. If anyone
believes I need to delay this please say so, but given the responses received over the past week I think I have the
go-ahead to do this.
Nigel