2 Replies Latest reply on Nov 16, 2007 9:58 AM by Andy Taylor

    Initial cut of MC integration work

    Tim Fox Master

      Just looking at Andy's recent commit.

      Looks good. :) A few initial comments/questions from a cursory look at the code:

      1) The Bridge MBean is still there
      2) Are DestinationMBean/TopicMBean/QueueMBean used any more? (If not we should remove them)
      3) Do we really need ManagedDestination, ManagedQueue and ManagedTopic?
      ManagedTopic is only meaningful to JMS (the new core eventually won't know about topics - since this is a JMS concept).
      4) As you mention, probably Configuration attributes should not be static.
      4) Configuration:
      So far we have separate config files for
      a) serverpeer (also contains old post office config)
      b) connection factories
      c) destinations
      d) persistence manager?
      can we/should we combine these further?


        • 1. Re: Initial cut of MC integration work
          Andy Taylor Master

           

          1) The Bridge MBean is still there

          I know, its on my list. It shouldnt be to much work if we deploy it as its own definition and deployment.

          2) Are DestinationMBean/TopicMBean/QueueMBean used any more? (If not we should remove them)

          Nope, they aren't needed. I was keeping them there for now for reference as i haven't implemented there JMX functionality yet.

          3) Do we really need ManagedDestination, ManagedQueue and ManagedTopic?
          ManagedTopic is only meaningful to JMS (the new core eventually won't know about topics - since this is a JMS concept).

          I dont see any reason why we cant remove these. it'll be just a case of moving all the properties into Queue/Topic and new base class to replace ManagedDestination.


          4) Configuration:
          So far we have separate config files for
          a) serverpeer (also contains old post office config)
          b) connection factories
          c) destinations
          d) persistence manager?
          can we/should we combine these further?


          I can move them all into one file if needed its not a biggy. As far as persistence manager goes, this is currently still only in the bean definition file. I wasn't sure how this would change with the new persistence model so i haven't done anything with it yet. Currently theres a definition for each database we support (and same for the post office), I was hoping we might move away from this if possible but i'm not sure yet how its all going to hang together, ideas?

          • 2. Re: Initial cut of MC integration work
            Andy Taylor Master

            The MC Integration is now at a point where it can be run both inside JBoss and embedded/standalone. Check out Branch_MC_Integration_New.

            to run inside jboss just set JBOSS_HOME and run 'ant deploy' you'll have to make sure to remove JBM 1.4 first.

            to run embedded/standalone run the command 'ant embedded'.

            This will create a new directory in output/embedded. cd into this directory and run './run.sh local'. This will run JBM inside its own vm via the class org.jboss.jms.server.microcontainer.JBMBootstrapServer. you'll see that ive added a test () method that produces and consumes some messages. At the minute theres no API for creating client connections, i'll add these once some of the other refactoring is complete.

            Theres also a remote config that uses the Jboss naming Server to show how you can plug in your own. To run this you'll need to copy the jar jnpserver.jar from the jboss 5 installation into the lib dir and run './run.sh remote'. In this configuration you'll be able to run any current JBM client, such as the examples.

            Theres still some stuff missing but I'm going to concentrate on getting the tests working so i can get this into the trunk.