You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by si...@insession.com on 2005/08/05 03:57:47 UTC
JMS configuration plans and config.list questions
The org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config defines an ActiveMQ resource
adapter ( and the DefaultActiveMQConnectionFactory ) ,
MDBTransferBeanOutQueue and SendReceiveQueue admin objects.
Should the two queues be removed ( I assume they were there for testing in
the past)?
Are we expecting users of the web console ( I haven't played with yet)
adding more queues to the org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config, or should
we be encouraging them to use their own config?
If we aren't expecting users to be able to add more queues to the
org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config, then should the
org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config be removed from the config.list and
replaced with org/apache/geronimo/ActiveMQServer?
John
This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission
error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately
and destroy this e-mail. Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon
this information by unintended recipients is prohibited. Any opinions
expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
Re: JMS configuration plans and config.list questions
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
David, Thanks for your help ... see comments below.
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>
>> Well I'm still feeling my way around the web console code, but it
>> looks to me like they are expecting users to add more queues to the
>> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config.
>
>
> I don't think this is possible yet, although I think aaron is working
> on a way to make it possible shortly. I believe that each new queue
> is currently added to a new configuration.
You're right. I was mistakenly looking at the creation of new JMS
Connection Factories which does in fact create new factories (and
therefore configs) with a parent-id of org/apache/geronmio/SystemJMS.
Of course this might not work now either without Aaron's changes ... but
it looks like that is what the code is assuming. The creation of new
queues (and therefore configs) is in fact based off a different parent
(something like org/apache/geronimo/Console) ... but this does seem to
be working.
>>
>> What should be be encouraging them to do ... that's the harder
>> question. I'll look for somebody else to answer that one. :-)
>
>
> Allowing, yes, at least for "mutable" configurations. Encouraging,
> maybe.
>
>>
>> However, I'm looking at a problem that may end up being related to
>> (or affected by) the configuration.
>>
>> The Web Console includes capabilities to manage JMS connection
>> factories and destinations (adding/removing queues and topics).
>> However, the portlet to manage the factories is currently failing
>> with an exception because it assumes that there is a "state"
>> attribute on the each factory GBean and this attribute doesn't exist
>> on the DefaultActiveMQConnectionFactory.
>
>
> I believe this is due to the recent removal of the jsr-77 state
> manageable and similar attributes from the base gbean wrapper object.
> I think the intent was to move them to all gbeans that were exposed in
> jsr-77. Apparently not all of this proposal was implemented, which
> may possibly affect our compliance with the jsr-77 portion of the tck.
I finally figured out that the state of a GBean is now maintained for
each GBean by the kernel. Therefore, rather than getting the "state"
attribute from the GBean I must call kernel.getGBeanState() for the
particular GBean. I guess that means that it was implemented but just
not reflected in the Console sandbox yet.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> So I wonder if the portlet is in error looking for the wrong
>> attribute or the factory GBean is in error for not defining the
>> attribute. Of course, if we remove the queues and factory defined
>> in SystemJMS then this eliminates the problem (at least on the
>> DefaultActionMQConnectionFactory).
>>
>> - Joe
>>
>> sissonj@insession.com wrote:
>>
>>> The org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config defines an ActiveMQ
>>> resource adapter ( and the DefaultActiveMQConnectionFactory ) ,
>>> MDBTransferBeanOutQueue and SendReceiveQueue admin objects.
>>>
>>> Should the two queues be removed ( I assume they were there for
>>> testing in the past)?
>>>
>>> Are we expecting users of the web console ( I haven't played with
>>> yet) adding more queues to the org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config,
>>> or should we be encouraging them to use their own config?
>>>
>>> If we aren't expecting users to be able to add more queues to the
>>> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config, then should the
>>> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config be removed from the config.list
>>> and replaced with org/apache/geronimo/ActiveMQServer?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
>>> proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
>>> solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or
>>> transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the
>>> sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review,
>>> dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended
>>> recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are
>>> those of the author personally.
>>
>> --
>> Joe Bohn
>>
>> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
>> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
>> lose." -- Jim Elliot
>>
>
>
>
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn@earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
Re: JMS configuration plans and config.list questions
Posted by David Jencks <dj...@apache.org>.
On Aug 5, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> Well I'm still feeling my way around the web console code, but it
> looks to me like they are expecting users to add more queues to the
> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config.
I don't think this is possible yet, although I think aaron is working
on a way to make it possible shortly. I believe that each new queue is
currently added to a new configuration.
>
> What should be be encouraging them to do ... that's the harder
> question. I'll look for somebody else to answer that one. :-)
Allowing, yes, at least for "mutable" configurations. Encouraging,
maybe.
>
> However, I'm looking at a problem that may end up being related to
> (or affected by) the configuration.
>
> The Web Console includes capabilities to manage JMS connection
> factories and destinations (adding/removing queues and topics).
> However, the portlet to manage the factories is currently failing with
> an exception because it assumes that there is a "state" attribute on
> the each factory GBean and this attribute doesn't exist on the
> DefaultActiveMQConnectionFactory.
I believe this is due to the recent removal of the jsr-77 state
manageable and similar attributes from the base gbean wrapper object.
I think the intent was to move them to all gbeans that were exposed in
jsr-77. Apparently not all of this proposal was implemented, which may
possibly affect our compliance with the jsr-77 portion of the tck.
thanks
david jencks
>
> So I wonder if the portlet is in error looking for the wrong
> attribute or the factory GBean is in error for not defining the
> attribute. Of course, if we remove the queues and factory defined in
> SystemJMS then this eliminates the problem (at least on the
> DefaultActionMQConnectionFactory).
>
> - Joe
>
> sissonj@insession.com wrote:
>> The org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config defines an ActiveMQ resource
>> adapter ( and the DefaultActiveMQConnectionFactory ) ,
>> MDBTransferBeanOutQueue and SendReceiveQueue admin objects.
>>
>> Should the two queues be removed ( I assume they were there for
>> testing in the past)?
>>
>> Are we expecting users of the web console ( I haven't played with
>> yet) adding more queues to the org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config,
>> or should we be encouraging them to use their own config?
>>
>> If we aren't expecting users to be able to add more queues to the
>> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config, then should the
>> org/apache/geronimo/SystemJMS config be removed from the config.list
>> and replaced with org/apache/geronimo/ActiveMQServer?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
>> proprietary or non-public information. This information is intended
>> solely for the designated recipient(s). If an addressing or
>> transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the
>> sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any review,
>> dissemination, use or reliance upon this information by unintended
>> recipients is prohibited. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are
>> those of the author personally.
> --
> Joe Bohn
>
> joe.bohn@earthlink.net
> "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot
> lose." -- Jim Elliot
>