[jms-spec users] [jsr343-experts] Re: (JMS_SPEC-25) Standardise the interface between a JMS provider and a Java EE application server
- From: Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin@...>
- To: jsr343-experts@...
- Subject: [jms-spec users] [jsr343-experts] Re: (JMS_SPEC-25) Standardise the interface between a JMS provider and a Java EE application server
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:36:37 +0000
- List-id: <jsr343-experts.jms-spec.java.net>
- Organization: Oracle Corporation
I asked for views on whether we are sure that we want to require a JMS
provider to implement a resource adapter.
*** Question 1: Do you agree with the existing wording of JMS 2.0, which says that
"A JMS provider (whether it forms
part of a Java EE application server or not) is required to include a resource
Clebert Suconic chose A
John Ament chose B
John Archibold chose B
John Barby chose B
Rob Davies chose B
Chris Barrow (not on EG) chose B
I chose A (but only if there was clear support for it)
Tom Barnes (directly) chose B
If your answer to question (1) was (A) then I'd like to ask a further
*** Question 2: Do you think that the resource adapter should be required to be
"portable" and work with "any" Java EE 7
application server, or whether it need only work with a Java EE 7 resource
adapter chosen by the vendor?
A: The resource adapter should be required to be "portable"
B: The resource adapter need only work with a Java EE 7 resource adapter
chosen by the vendor
This question applied only to those who chose A to question 1 above.
Clebert chose B
(John Ament said that we should require a RA to be portable, but not make it
mandatory to provide one)
I'm glad I asked this question, since it was one of the first things we agreed back in July 2011 and the membership of
the expert group has changed quite a lot since then.
This is just one sentence in the spec but one which has a significant impact for vendors - even though the goal was to
bring a significant benefit to users.
But I think it is clear from your responses (especially those from vendors) that there is insufficient support for this
requirement to justify putting it in the spec. I will therefore update the relevant chapter and bring the text to you
all for approval.
Note that the resource adapter chapter can still remain, though we'll need to change the wording. This still defines a
standard set of activation properties that application servers must support, though application servers are not, and
have never been, required to implement them via a resource adapter.
I'll circulate an updated chapter shortly.