1 2 Previous Next 19 Replies Latest reply on Jul 19, 2007 9:32 AM by marklittle Go to original post
      • 15. Re: Calling MDB from JBOSSESB Service
        marklittle

        I don't see a way of removing the packing of bytes without breaking interoperability or backward compatibility. Why can't we put the TextMessage in the body as well (like the ObjectMessage)?

        • 16. Re: Calling MDB from JBOSSESB Service
          beve

           

          Why can't we put the TextMessage in the body as well (like the ObjectMessage)?

          We can and we will probably have to.

          But we might be able to refactor the process() and getMessageContent() methods to be a bit more efficient by removeing duplicate instanceof for example.


          • 17. Re: Calling MDB from JBOSSESB Service
            marklittle

            At the moment we put into the body whatever getMessageContent returns as a byte array. That can't change or we break backward compatibility. Whatever is going in there now, has to continue to go in there in the 4.2 release. If we want to have additional information elsewhere in the Message body, then that's fine: it's new so we don't have to worry about existing users.

            • 18. Re: Calling MDB from JBOSSESB Service
              beve

               

              Whatever is going in there now, has to continue to go in there in the 4.2 release.

              I've written a unit test for PackageJmsContents for jira http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBESB-658 and I'll add asserts for verifying that the byte array is always put into the message body. And after that I'll take a look if it worth doing anything. If we are going to attend to this later we might just leave it be. But I'll add the test in either case.

              BTW, Mark could you comment on JBESB-658 with regard to the JMS expiration value as it also concerns the PackageJmsContents class.

              Thanks,

              Daniel

              • 19. Re: Calling MDB from JBOSSESB Service
                marklittle

                Well "later" could be a lot later, so if we can add the required information as well as the byte stream *or* allow for users to override what goes into the message at deployment or runtime, I think we should. We just need to have a backward compatibility option too :-)

                1 2 Previous Next