I think make the good parts of JMS2 (and other Java EE7 specs) as consideration in Deltaspike 1.0, but NOT a must, if possible provide equivalent implementations in Deltaspike. In future, add adapters to use Java EE 7 when switch to Java EE 7 development.
I hope the 1.0 can be released as soon as possible. Hantsy On 3/24/2013 06:57, Jason Porter wrote: > As much as I want to see JMS added, I agree it should be after 1.0. We need > to get this pushed out. > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Gerhard Petracek < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> @ romain: +1 >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> 2013/3/23 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> >>> yes but JMS is clearly not the most used >>> >>> can't we push it for the > 1.0? >>> >>> users really wait the first 1.0 to use DS and adding JMS now simply looks >>> like forgetting more common use cases >>> >>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/3/23 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> >>> >>>> hi @ all, >>>> >>>> imo it's more a basic question. >>>> if we do it for jms 2, we also have to (/should) do it for other >>>> specifications like bv 1.1 >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> gerhard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/3/21 Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >>>> >>>>> Ill rephrase a bit. I m rather -0 about it and -1 since a lot of >> others >>>>> stuff are needed before. >>>>> Le 21 mars 2013 22:50, "Arne Limburg" <[email protected] >>> a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> We should find out if one can simply use a JMS 2.0 implementation >> and >>>> put >>>>>> it into an deployment. If that will be possible, we would not need >> to >>>>>> implement it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arne >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 21.03.13 22:34 schrieb "Mark Struberg" unter <[email protected] >>> : >>>>>>> I tend to lean towards +1 simply because EE-7 containers will take >>>>>>> another year (or 2) to become used in projects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just think we should first close a few tasks before we open new >>>> ones. >>>>>>> LieGrue, >>>>>>> strub >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: John D. Ament <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 6:09 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: DISCUSS DeltaSpike-324 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Romain, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Generally, I'm mixed about these. However I think there's some >>>> pretty >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>> benefits. For an application developer, maybe none of the other >>>> JMS 2 >>>>>>>> features are useful to you (the bulk of the feature went into >> CDI >>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>> app server integration, and documentation clean up). You don't >>> want >>>>> to >>>>>>>> move off of TomEE 1.5.x to TomEE Y (which could support Java EE >> 7 >>>> Web >>>>>>>> Profile) due to downtime in your application. There's also lead >>>> time >>>>>>>> required to impelement JMS 2/Java EE 7 features in your >>> application >>>>>>>> server, >>>>>>>> but perhaps you don't want to or need to wait for the whole >> thing. >>>>>>>> This solution would be DS oriented, I believe requires >>>>> TransactionScoped >>>>>>>> (which could require the transaction classes be moved away from >>>>>>>> persistence) to operate properly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's also the case of using DeltaSpike as your CDI-JMS >>>>>>>> implementation if >>>>>>>> you were a JMS implementer. I haven't reached out to >> communities >>>> such >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ or HornetQ to see input here; I know the current >>>>>>>> GlassFish >>>>>>>> implementation calls their lower level directly (and not by >>> wrapping >>>>> the >>>>>>>> JMS APIs). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i'm globally -1 for redoing something which will exist >> somewhere >>>>> else >>>>>>>>> (basically if somebody wants JavaEE just let him use JavaEE, >> CDI >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> need the full stack IMO). Was my point for JPA, more again on >>> JMS. >>>>>>>>> It is great to add feature before the specs not once it is (or >>>>> almost) >>>>>>>>> done. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe i didnt fully get what you want to do so maybe share >> some >>>>>>>>> pastebin to >>>>>>>>> be sure we speak about the same stuff. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Romain Manni-Bucau* >>>>>>>>> *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* >>>>>>>>> *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< >>>>>>>>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> >>>>>>>>> *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* >>>>>>>>> *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2013/3/21 John D. Ament <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > All, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I'd like to open the floor to discussion for porting JMS 2 >>>>>>>> features to >>>>>>>>> > DeltaSpike, specifically the features that added some CDI >>>>>>>>> capabilities >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> > JMS. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Details of my rough proposal are here: >>>>>>>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-324 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Importing these features start to deprecate functionality in >>>> Seam >>>>>>>>> JMS >>>>>>>>> > (ideal). These features would give access to an API very >>>> similar >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> > JMS2 API around CDI injection. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Some limitations: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - This would not be a JMS implementation, simply an inspired >>>>>>>>> interface >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> > use in Java EE 6/JMS 1.x that leveraged CDI injection based >> on >>>> the >>>>>>>> rules >>>>>>>>> > for CDI injection of these interfaces. We would bring in >> very >>>>>>>>> similar >>>>>>>>> > annotations that supported the injection of the three target >>>>> types. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - Cannot use the exact interface, since the interface >>> implements >>>>>>>>> > AutoCloseable which is a Java SE 7 interface. DeltaSpike >> uses >>>>> Java >>>>>>>>> SE >>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>> > for a compiler. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - Internally these would have to use the current JMS >>> interfaces >>>> of >>>>>>>>> > connection, session. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > - Testing would be feasible but require a full Java EE >>> container >>>>>>>>> (e.g. >>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> > testing in Weld/OWB directly) that supported deployment of >>>>>>>> destinations >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> > runtime. Since this doesn't touch MDBs we can manually read >>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> > destination. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > John >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >
