On 20/02/2012 15:43, Nigel Deakin wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 18:13,
>
> 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.
I've now submitted the draft spec and javadocs to the JCP admin team for formal posting. I'll let you know when that has
happened. I'll also prepare an updated plan for the remainder of the JSR.
Meanwhile I think we can carry on discussing outstanding issues. Especially the three mentioned as being "unresolved" in
section A2:
A.2.1 Simplified JMS API: Support for multiple consumers on a session
A.2.2 Simplified API: Injecting a MessagingContext
A.2.3 Batch message delivery
One of the things I'm expected to do at this stage is to review all the proposals made in JIRA by members of the
community and make sure that they have received at least an initial evaluation.
To see a list of issues awaiting evaluation goto
http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JIRAUsage
and click on the query for "Issue is awaiting evaluation".
There are currently 38 such issues. I will review them, ensure that they are adequately described, and then add a tag to
make sure that we discuss them between now and the next draft (the Public Draft). That's the minimum I will do at this
stage.
Over the next weeks and months I will bring each issue to the expert group with a recommendation as to what we do with
it (e.g. include it in JMS 2.0, reject it, defer it for later). So there's no need for you to go through these
proposals unless you particularly want to: I'll make sure that any (non-trivial) issues are discussed here (by email).
We're approaching the time when I will be asking the expert group for any new proposals for what should be in JMS 2.0,
so please have a think about your priorities.
Note that we already have several issues carried over from the Early Draft which we also will need to consider (there
are currently about 13 of these).
Nigel