[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss ESB] - Re: JmsConnectionPool: Allowing control over the number of S

[tfennelly]

"Kevin.Conner at jboss.com" wrote : For example, someone sets this single parameters to 20 and it works fine with their current listeners.  Then they add a new one, opposite type, but forget to 'downgrade' the value.
  | 
  | Do you not think that having two would make the difference obvious?  You could support *both* values without having to force the user into using the lowest one, especially if that lower value happens to be 1.

I only think it will make it more obvious to the user (from a config perspective) if the user sees the 2 config params in front of him/her when they encounter the issue, or if they've already run into the issue some time before.  I also don't think it would be any more obvious to the user than the option of creating another dedicated "one-session-per-connection" provider block and putting the bus configs for those in there in one place.

"Kevin.Conner at jboss.com" wrote : We are trying to minimise impact, as this is a platform branch, so major rewrites are out.  But this should be a small change which would have a big impact on usability.  Do you not agree?

I don't disagree, as such ;)  I would agree that in theory the change to accomodate this should be straightforward enough, but 2 factors weight against this in my mind... 1) I was under the impression that we were trying to make min changes here and that that would rule out anything that was not absolutely necessary, which I would consider this to be since the user has an "acceptable" (enough IMO) way around it...  2) the current impl is not as straightforward as it should/could be, so making seemingly trivial improvements on top of it would probably just obscure an already obscured chunk of code a little bit more IMO.

All that said, I think we could debate this until the cows come home, so why don't we say that I just add a second parameter and get on with it :)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4231357#4231357

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4231357