I'm all for release often and request feedback. I think we should
prioritize Batching for next Draft though as I believe there will be
some feedback from the community.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2015 18:00, Nigel Deakin wrote:
>>
>> Following feedback and discussions I've now taken the proposals to improve
>> JMS MDBs to the next stage, which is to draft
>> a new chapter for the JMS specification. This is chapter 16 "JMS
>> Message-driven beans".
>>
>> This can be downloaded from
>> https://java.net/downloads/jms-spec/JMS%202.1/JMS21_EDR1_RC1_CH16.pdf
>> I've updated the Javadocs to match; these are in the same place as before,
>> https://jms-spec.java.net/2.1-SNAPSHOT/apidocs/
>
>
> Any further comments on this?
>
> Since this is quite a significant feature I'd like to propose we formally
> publish a draft of the specification that includes this new chapter and
> designate it as "Early Draft 1". With JavaOne coming up in a few weeks I'm
> expecting a lot of interest in JMS 2.1 (and Java EE generally) and I'd like
> to be able to invite people to read this and make comments.
>
> For those unfamiliar with the JCP process, the purpose of an early draft is
> to seek feedback from the public. It is "designed to encourage Expert Groups
> to feel comfortable going into this review with open issues and questions
> that they would like the public to help them resolve". In this case we do
> have a number of open issues such as exception handling, which are mentioned
> explicitly in the current draft.
>
> Note that there is no limit to the number of early drafts we can publish,
> which is why I'm calling this EDR 1.
>
> Here's the complete spec including the new chapter:
> https://java.net/projects/jms-spec/downloads/download/JMS%202.1/JMS21_EDR1_RC1.pdf
> (The new chapter is unchanged from before, but this allows you to see it in
> the context of the whole spec)
>
> After this review we will need to resolve the issues listed, and then we can
> move on to some of the other features we want to see in JMS 2.1.
>
> If you have any comments on this, please let me know.
>
> Nigel
>
>>
>> At a future stage we also need to consider
>> * Extending this to allow batch delivery (as proposed by Clebert)
>> * Defining redelivery behaviour if the MDB throws an exception (as
>> proposed in the original JSR): redelivery limits,
>> dead message queues etc.
>>
>> Please take a look and let me know what you think.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic