This content has been marked as final. 
    
Show                 6 replies
    
- 
        1. Re: Micro-container Integrationtimfox May 30, 2007 8:06 AM (in response to apwalker)Sounds good 
- 
        2. Re: Micro-container Integrationalesj May 30, 2007 8:09 AM (in response to apwalker)If you need any help, let me know. 
- 
        3. Re: Micro-container Integrationtimfox 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 Integrationapwalker 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 Integrationtimfox 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 Integrationovidiu.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.
 
     
     
    