[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - Re: Initial cut of MC integration work

[ataylor]

anonymous wrote : 1) The Bridge MBean is still there
I know, its on my list. It shouldnt be to much work if we deploy it as its own definition and deployment.

anonymous wrote : 2) Are DestinationMBean/TopicMBean/QueueMBean used any more? (If not we should remove them) 
Nope, they aren't needed. I was keeping them there for now for reference as i haven't implemented there JMX functionality yet.

anonymous wrote : 3) Do we really need ManagedDestination, ManagedQueue and ManagedTopic?
  | ManagedTopic is only meaningful to JMS (the new core eventually won't know about topics - since this is a JMS concept). 
I dont see any reason why we cant remove these. it'll be just a case of moving all the properties into Queue/Topic and new base class to replace ManagedDestination.

anonymous wrote : 
  | 4) Configuration:
  | So far we have separate config files for
  | a) serverpeer (also contains old post office config)
  | b) connection factories
  | c) destinations
  | d) persistence manager?
  | can we/should we combine these further? 
  | 

I can move them all into one file if needed its not a biggy. As far as persistence manager goes, this is currently still only in the bean definition file. I wasn't sure how this would change with the new persistence model so i haven't done anything with it yet. Currently theres a definition for each database we support (and same for the post office), I was hoping we might move away from this if possible but i'm not sure yet how its all going to hang together, ideas?

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4102427#4102427

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4102427