I would like to remove the bus/provider requirement that listeners/ gateways have. The move is basically around cutting the amount of syntax sugar that is required when writing a gateway or a listener. My bet is that in a majority of cases, the provider/bus syntax/metadata is not reusable. Why require the extra metadata? This is even more so when plugging in JCA since JCA in/out is configured separately, or in the case of JMS, might not even have an outbound configuration. Bill -- Bill Burke JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc. _______________________________________________ esb-dev mailing list esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev

Its simple. If you are only declaring one listener for one provider, then there really is no need to describe a provider. Its extra syntax sugar that just annoys the user. Mark Little wrote: > Bill, could you provide an example of what you want to accomplish (a > before and after)? It may help to remove any confusion. > > Cheers, > > Mark. > > > On 4 May 2007, at 22:43, Bill Burke wrote: > >> I would like to remove the bus/provider requirement that >> listeners/gateways have. >> >> The move is basically around cutting the amount of syntax sugar that >> is required when writing a gateway or a listener. My bet is that in >> a majority of cases, the provider/bus syntax/metadata is not >> reusable. Why require the extra metadata? >> >> This is even more so when plugging in JCA since JCA in/out is >> configured separately, or in the case of JMS, might not even have an >> outbound configuration. >> >> Bill >> >> -- >> Bill Burke >> JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc. >> _______________________________________________ >> esb-dev mailing list >> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:esb-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev > > ---- > > Mark Little > mlittle(a)redhat.com <mailto:mlittle@redhat.com> > > JBoss, a Division of Red Hat > Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod > Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in UK > and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael > Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David Owens (Ireland) > > > >

Hehehe... I expected this would come back at some stage :-) The potential for errors caused by duplication Vs the potential errors caused by the confusion/frustration brought about by excessive normalisation (following references around the config before you eventually find what you're looking for)... which is a greater risk??? hmmmm... Kurt T Stam wrote: > You mean it annoys you ;)? You still have to define it the jms > provider > info. Does it really matter where it is? Maybe I'm not understanding > this correctly, but I don't see why this would be annoying. It's > reduces > the amount of configuration bugs. Providing a channel is different > then > listening to it. We can sit down next week and add a jca-listener > to the > xsd and I'll add a mapper for it, easy stuff. > > --Kurt > > Bill Burke wrote: > >> Its simple. If you are only declaring one listener for one >> provider, >> then there really is no need to describe a provider. Its extra >> syntax >> sugar that just annoys the user. >> >> Mark Little wrote: >> >>> Bill, could you provide an example of what you want to >>> accomplish (a >>> before and after)? It may help to remove any confusion. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> On 4 May 2007, at 22:43, Bill Burke wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I would like to remove the bus/provider requirement that >>>> listeners/gateways have. >>>> >>>> The move is basically around cutting the amount of syntax sugar >>>> that >>>> is required when writing a gateway or a listener. My bet is >>>> that in >>>> a majority of cases, the provider/bus syntax/metadata is not >>>> reusable. Why require the extra metadata? >>>> >>>> This is even more so when plugging in JCA since JCA in/out is >>>> configured separately, or in the case of JMS, might not even >>>> have an >>>> outbound configuration. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bill Burke >>>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> esb-dev mailing list >>>> esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:esb-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev >>>> >>> ---- >>> >>> Mark Little >>> mlittle(a)redhat.com <mailto:mlittle@redhat.com> >>> >>> JBoss, a Division of Red Hat >>> Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod >>> Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered >>> in UK >>> and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael >>> Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David Owens (Ireland) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > esb-dev mailing list > esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev > -- Red Hat: Registered Address: Red Hat Ltd, Brian O' Donnell and Partners, 62 Merrion Square, Dublin 2, Ireland. Registered in the Companies Registration Office, Parnell House, 14 Parnell Square, Dublin 1, Ireland, at No. 304873 Directors: Charlie Peters (USA), Michael Cunningham (USA). David Owens, Brendan Lane _______________________________________________ esb-dev mailing list esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev

Mark Little wrote: > What's to be gained by removing this now? Configuration is definitely > going to change between 4.2 and 5.0 and it sounds like this isn't > such a > major headache. Or maybe I'm missing something. Tom and Kurt have already had these discussions and the current configuration is the result. I'm sure there are other ways this can be done but I believe we should stick with the current configuration for now. Kurt has already volunteered to make any changes which are necessary to support the JCA work. Kev -- JBoss, a Division of Red Hat Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David Owens (Ireland)

Mark Little wrote: > So we leave it as is, with whatever changes Kurt believes are > possible/necessary for JCA, right? That would be my choice. Kurt knows exactly what needs to be done to handle the integration. Kev

Bill Burke wrote: > FYI, already made the configuration changes to allow nested XML in > provider/bus/listener <property> elements. Sounds good. > I'd like to add <jca-bus> > and <jca-listener> elements to the schema, if that's not too much > change fo you to handle... ROFL. Kurt's the man ;-)