You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4j-dev@logging.apache.org by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> on 2014/03/30 19:52:22 UTC
Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in
their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work
fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This
would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata
available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the
Import-Package attribute.
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
Also, JMX code is already in its own package :)
On 30 March 2014 13:16, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JMS, not JMX.
>
>
> On 30 March 2014 13:11, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
>>
>> I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in
>> their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work
>> fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This
>> would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata
>> available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the
>> Import-Package attribute.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Ralph Goers <rg...@apache.org>.
Oops, sorry.
Ralph
> On Mar 30, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> JMS, not JMX.
>
>
>> On 30 March 2014 13:11, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
>>
>> I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the Import-Package attribute.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>.
JMS, not JMX.
On 30 March 2014 13:11, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
>
> I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in
> their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work
> fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This
> would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata
> available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the
> Import-Package attribute.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
--
Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
I disagree. Why would you want to do that? When you have a production issue and you need to look inside the server to see what is going on you cannot restart the process to enable JMX... I really think it should be on by default.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2014/03/31, at 8:39, Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> JMX shoud be off by default IMO? Is there a recommendation or a known pattern in this area?
>
> Gary
>
>
>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
>>
>> I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the Import-Package attribute.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition
> Spring Batch in Action
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
JMX shoud be off by default IMO? Is there a recommendation or a known
pattern in this area?
Gary
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
> What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
>
> I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in
> their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work
> fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This
> would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata
> available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the
> Import-Package attribute.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: Looking for feedback on moving JMS code to their own packages.
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
What JaveEE APIs? JMX was moved to Java SE in 1.5 and 1.6.
I’m not sure I like the mbeans registering automatically but oh well.
Ralph
On Mar 30, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since JMS depends on Java EE APIs, it would make sense to place them in their own packages similar to how the db code is handled. I know they work fine as is, but it makes it easier to segregate optional dependencies. This would be useful for OSGi so that we can use the full set of metadata available without requiring all the optional dependencies in the Import-Package attribute.
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <bo...@gmail.com>