[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Esoteric functionality in JBoss Messaging
by genman
I noticed my name come up regarding porting this "esoteric features."
I wish I had time (and a cookie) for working on these features. Unfortunately, I'm working at a new company that's adamently Weblogic at the moment and I might not be able to justify working on JBoss Messaging.
And unless you have a customer demand for scheduled messages and improved expiration features, there's no likely no reason to work on these features.
Although it seems relatively easy to implement, there's a couple of things that I see as complicating matters. One, you will probably want to add indexes for scheduled delivery time. And then your queries are additionally more complicated, not to mention additional issues with data migration. I think it would have been better if Hibernate or something was used for managing the queries as I expect changing the schema is a big hassle.
Anyway, if you're curious on my thoughts, let me know. I do like thinking about the project.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3975416#3975416
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3975416
19 years
[Design of JBossCache] - Re: Thoughts on 2.0 API
by ben.wang＠jboss.com
"genman" wrote : Probably the boat has already left the dock, but here are some thoughts...
Certainly there is room for discussion and make some changes, if ncessary. That's what a devleoper release is for anyway. :-)
anonymous wrote : There's org.jboss.cache.factories and org.jboss.cache.pojo.factory, in addition to being inconsistent, I sort of don't like the "ies" look. I also don't like "factory" as a package in general, because I don't think it has enough weight (number of classes and scope of use) to warrant separation. Its use is integral to how a user builds a cache, so it should be immediately obvious where to get it.
Agreed. Actually, I don't use org.jboss.cache.pojo.factory package now. Use it will trigger a RuntimeException. The factory class is located directly under org.jobss.cache.pojo.
anonymous wrote : I also doubt that having the Factory be an interface is better than an abstract base class. A simple "abstract Cache createCache(...)" that users can replace and a "static Cache createDefaultCache" would be far more useful.
I don't quite agree that the current way of creating a default cache is that bad though. If you don't pass in the start flag then the default is to start the cache life cycle. Isn't this what you are asking for?
anonymous wrote : Why does Region not have a "CacheListener"? There are 6 methods in CacheSPI for a listener, but none in Region.
Sure this would be nice. Manik can say more definitely. But we do have a plan to elevate the Region into first class construct.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3975356#3975356
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3975356
19 years