This content has been marked as final.
Show 2 replies
-
1. Re: ClosedInterceptor and HierarchyInterceptor
ovidiu.feodorov Apr 8, 2005 3:16 PM (in response to timfox)There is one omission for now: The hierarchy interceptor does not maintain MessageConsumers. This is because there is currently no ConsumerDelegate class (the class returned from ServerSessionDelegate is a Consumer). Any proxy that's closed by the ClosedInterceptor needs to implement close() and closing() which the Consumer class doesn't.
You are right, this was an experiment, it was implemented that way because the Consumer didn't need to field any "ConsumerDelegate" method. All consumer-related methods are taken care of by interceptors. When all JMS functionality will be implemented, we will refactor the model and see what is the best aproach.
Do you really need a ConsumerDelegate class? What would be the reason to have it? -
2. Re: ClosedInterceptor and HierarchyInterceptor
timfox Apr 9, 2005 3:26 AM (in response to timfox)"ovidiu.feodorov@jboss.com" wrote:
There is one omission for now: The hierarchy interceptor does not maintain MessageConsumers. This is because there is currently no ConsumerDelegate class (the class returned from ServerSessionDelegate is a Consumer). Any proxy that's closed by the ClosedInterceptor needs to implement close() and closing() which the Consumer class doesn't.
You are right, this was an experiment, it was implemented that way because the Consumer didn't need to field any "ConsumerDelegate" method. All consumer-related methods are taken care of by interceptors. When all JMS functionality will be implemented, we will refactor the model and see what is the best aproach.
Do you really need a ConsumerDelegate class? What would be the reason to have it?
I suppose, if we needed to do anything on close() for a Consumer then that would be a reason to have a ConsumerDelegate() class, otherwise I agree that there doesn't seem to be a good reason.