[cdi-dev] JMS 2.1: Proposal to allow any CDI managed bean in a Java EE application to listen for JMS messages

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2015-08-25 19:10 GMT+02:00 Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin at oracle.com>:

> I'm sorry I don't understand you. I thought you were asking about an API
> which does not use annotation.
>
>
Both are needed (like websocket spec). Annotation one is nice for fully
business code and/or simple libs but relying on CDI allows to simplify the
wiring since you can reuse CDI beans under the hood ie have an implicit
connection factory if there is a single one etc which is not possible in
fully SE context.


> Nigel
>
> On 25/08/2015 18:03, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>> Integrating it in CDI lifecycle through an event allow CDI users to still
>> use it in the right phase of the container
>> boot so it is still important IMO and avoid all users to have their own
>> custom listener for it -
>> @Initialized(AppScoped.class). Also allow to enrich the API through the
>> event itself making things smoother IMO.
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <
>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>>
>> 2015-08-25 18:58 GMT+02:00 Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin at oracle.com <mailto:
>> nigel.deakin at oracle.com>>:
>>
>>     On 25/08/2015 17:35, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>         well was thinking to both but I see it really nice to not rely
>> only on annotation - and aligned with most specs
>>         - since
>>         sometimes you just want to either be able to rely on a loop or a
>> custom config to register your listeners.
>>         Annotations
>>         are too rigid for such cases.
>>
>>
>>     Obviously, if users don't want to use CDI (or MDBs, which are also
>> declarative), then they would use the normal JMS
>>     API. The existing API to register an async message listener isn't
>> good enough, and we may improve it in JMS 2.1, but
>>     that's not something that I'd want to bother the people on cdi-dev
>> with.
>>
>>     Nigel
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20150825/c96e90bf/attachment-0001.html