On 02/05/2012 16:52, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> To me it seems a low hanging fruit. WebLogic support that kind of
> feature, and most of the MDBs I see out there are suffering
> performance because they commit a message on every receive.
>
>
> I have talked to many users and users were quite happy on the possibility.
>
> Having a BatchMessage type would be an easy fix I think.
>
> I was a bit out as I was having a lot of work being done internally on
> the release of the project I'm working on. It was my fault I didn't
> raise this before.
(I sent a direct reply to Clebert about this but should probably post something to this list as well)
Although this feature was in the early draft, I raised this issue again on 13 March in the light of my experience in
defining the API needed for the Early Draft:
http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/lists/jsr343-experts/archive/2012-03/message/17
I suggested an alternative (BatchMessage) which required fewer API changes. This attracted a couple of supporters, but
it also brought several people to state their objection to the whole feature.
I asked for a vote, with the following results:
http://java.net/projects/jms-spec/lists/jsr343-experts/archive/2012-04/message/54
As you can see, no-one voted to keep the BatchMessageListener API we initially agreed, and of those who voted we had a
fairly even split between those in favour of the alternative BatchMessage API that I suggested, and those who wanted to
defer the whole thing. Given the objections I didn't think there was enough support to go ahead with any change at the
moment.
Nigel