On 23/04/2012 11:29, John D. Ament wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> What if we used QueueReference instead of QueueImpl (and TopicReference...TopicImpl)?
>
> John
>
I don't really mind what it would be called.
We might want to choose a name that reflects
* that it was a implementation class rather than an interface
* that it was independent of JMS provider
* that it implemented javax.jms.Queue or javax.jms.Topic
* that it was a wrapper around a destination type and name
QueueReference would do, if we are able to come to an agreement about the principle of having such a class. Other
suggestions welcome. QueueName comes to mind.
Nigel