On 17/06/2012 17:25, Reza Rahman wrote:
I do really like your idea of splitting the JMS context state and
connection/session -- it seems like a very elegant solution.
Thanks. I think that idea merits being written up in more detail. I've therefore expanded my previous wiki page of use cases so that it to cover *two* alternative proposals which make use of @TransactionScoped.
The proposal in the Early Draft is now called "option 1" (request scope, separate JMSContext instance for each injection point)
The proposal I made on 1st June is called "option 2" (transaction scope, separate JMSContext instance for each injection point)
This third proposal is called "option 3" (transaction scope, except for the producer's javabean properties)
I've divided the updated proposals into two pages:
Introduction and proposals
To see the difference between the option 2 and 3, look at use case C.
Please have a look and make any comments by Friday 6th July if possible - we really need to get this issue wrapped up since implementation work has already started!
BTW, I suspect the effort to standardize the transaction scope is unlikely
to happen in a timely fashion (this is my second attempt at it in the CDI EG
and things seem to stall both times for various somewhat inexplicable
reasons). I think we should consider simply defining a JMS context specific
scope to keep things moving along and see if that can be adopted by the CDI
EG (or some other EG) at some later point in time. As such, this is the
precedent in JPA, JSF, etc anyway.
Hmm. Yes, that's unfortunate but may be what we have to do. I think this EG should decide what *we* want, and then we can have one last attempt at getting CDI to adopt it.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2437/5100 - Release Date: 06/29/12
|Rüdiger zu Dohna||06/03/2012|
[jms-spec users] [jsr343-experts] Re: (JMS_SPEC-70) Define annotations for injecting MessagingContext objects