This content has been marked as final.
Show 6 replies
-
1. Re: Micro-container Integration
timfox May 30, 2007 8:06 AM (in response to apwalker)Sounds good
-
2. Re: Micro-container Integration
alesj May 30, 2007 8:09 AM (in response to apwalker)If you need any help, let me know.
-
3. Re: Micro-container Integration
timfox May 30, 2007 8:41 AM (in response to apwalker)One thing I would like to see is the JMX wrappers over the POJO classes to be as thin and stateless as possible.
Currently some of the JMX classes (e.g. QueueService) already delegates to a POJO (ManagedQueue) but some of the queue attributes etc are duplicated between the two classes.
I would like to see this consolidated in one place (the POJO). -
4. Re: Micro-container Integration
apwalker May 30, 2007 9:59 AM (in response to apwalker)Currently some of the JMX classes (e.g. QueueService) already delegates to a POJO (ManagedQueue) but some of the queue attributes etc are duplicated between the two classes.
Yes I've seen this in a few other places too which I will tidy up as well.
In terms of testing I assume all the current test will need to pass but what additional tests do think will be required.
Also is there a plan to replace the current ServiceContainer with a MC based one? -
5. Re: Micro-container Integration
timfox Jun 2, 2007 7:56 AM (in response to apwalker)"apwalker" wrote:
Also is there a plan to replace the current ServiceContainer with a MC based one?
Yes, this is something we should certainly consider. -
6. Re: Micro-container Integration
ovidiu.feodorov Jun 2, 2007 7:39 PM (in response to apwalker)I concur.
We would have gone straight to MC if it was available when we started with SC.