Rahman,
On 27/07/2015 18:51, Rahman USTA wrote:
> Ahaa! Thank you Nigel;
>
> I agreed with your example codes. I did not know EJB 3.2 spec case about marker interface.
>
> About the interface names;
>
> @MessageDriven and @JMSListener, they seems nicely good. But, @MessageDriven may be @MessageDrivenBean, but I'm not
> sure. +Bean is long, but it says it is a Bean.
@javax.ejb.MessageDriven is the existing *annotation* to specify a MDB. Since this is still a MDB, this is still needed.
javax.jms.JMSMessageDrivenBean is the proposed new marker *interface* to specify a new-style *JMS* MDB. As I explained,
I'm hoping this will not be needed. I agree that it would be confusing and verbose to require both.
>
> Our JUG folks may say their ideas about JMS_SPEC-116 also.
Great. Please invite them to look at
https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JMSListener2
>
> Thanks for explanation.
>
> If you want to get feedbacks or something about SPEC-116, please feel free to ping us.
>
Are you signed up to users_at_jms-spec.java.net ? That will ensure you don't miss anything.
Nigel
>
> 2015-07-27 12:46 GMT+03:00 Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com <mailto:nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com>>:
>
> Hi Rahman, thanks for your comments.
>
> I have written up some more detailed proposals for improving MDBs (in direct response to this JIRA issue) at
> https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/pages/JMSListener2 .
>
> I think I am in agreement with everything you say, and if you take a look at those more detailed proposals I hope
> you will see this.
>
> I am currently proposing that
> (1) The MDB must implement a new marker interface JMSMessageDrivenBean
> (2) The callback method must be annotated with @JMSListener
>
> @MessageDriven
> public class MyMessageBean implements JMSMessageDrivenBean {
>
> @JMSListener(lookup="java:global/Trades", type=JMSListener.Type.QUEUE)
> public void processTrade(TextMessage tradeMessage){
> ...
> }
>
> }
>
> I agree with you that the need to implement a marker interface is undesirable. However it is needed to work around a
> restriction in the EJB 3.2 specification. Essentially, EJB 3.2 only allows callback methods that are not defined
> using a listener interface such as javax.jms.MessageListener if the MDB implements a no-methods marker interface.
>
> I'm hoping to get the EJB specification to remove the need to implement a no-methods marker interface. If this is
> done then MDB can look like:
>
> @MessageDriven
> public class MyMessageBean {
>
> @JMSListener(lookup="java:global/Trades", type=JMSListener.Type.QUEUE)
> public void processTrade(TextMessage tradeMessage){
> ...
> }
>
> }
>
> Nigel
>
> On 25/07/2015 13:23, Rahman USTA wrote:
>
> Hello, I'm Rahman from Istanbul JUG;
>
> I have read JMS_SPEC-116 <https://java.net/jira/browse/JMS_SPEC-116>, in Description, and I want to give some
> feedbacks, suggestion 1)
>
> 1. Introduce a new interface "javax.jms.JMSMessageEndpoint" (or similar name) that can be used as a marker interface
> required by MessageEndpointFactory.getEndpointClass(). It shall have no methods, not extend any other interface but
> simply exist to be a marker that the given class will have its public methods exposed as potential targets for
> messages
> received by the RA.
>
> There is a suggested JMSMessageEndpoint interface to mark class a JMS message endpoint. In Java EE practice, I'm
> seeing
> annotation markers are more used than marker interface. For example JSR 356 WebSocket API has @ServerEndpoint
> annotation. Like that, JMS might has @JMSMessageEndpoint annotation instead of a marker interface.
>
> Suggestion 3)
>
> 3. Currently, the onMessage method is defined by looking for a method named "onMessage" that takes a "Message"
> object as
> an argument. This algorithm should be changed to also look for any instance of "JMSMessageEndpoint", find any method
> that is annotated as XXX (whatever is defined in 2) as a possible target, then depending on there being a match
> between
> that takes anything that derives from "Message" and only pass appropriate messages to it.
>
> As a suggested @JMSMessageEndpoint annotation, message receivers may be declared by annotation for example
> @OnMessage.
>
> Also, @OnMessage annotation might have some properties to customize Messge listener method.
>
> What do you think for that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Rahman USTA
> Istanbul JUG
> https://github.com/rahmanusta <http://www.kodcu.com/>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rahman USTA
> Istanbul JUG
> https://github.com/rahmanusta <http://www.kodcu.com/>