[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Issue 250 - autowire, underlying the 227 question.
Our last conference call help me consolidate my thoughts on this
one. I see a matrix of possibilities: For implementations that choose to map "channel" to "Destination", autowire helps, because it eliminates the need to define the individual channels - it lets the implementation do the work for the assembler. Without autowire, I run the risk of mis-connecting. For implementations that merely use "channel" as a scoping mechanism (in which case, shouldn't we call it "eventScope"?), what's the likelyhood that 80% of the composites will only really need a single channel? That is, the composite *is* the scope. If that's the case, what good comes of forcing the assembler to define the channel, and then have every component producer/consumer to wire to that single channel? What I see now is that this issue highlights an underlying problem with channels as we've discussed them. What they really amount to is a scoping mechanism with constraints (where the constraints are policies and event types). However, my understanding from what I've heard about the way customers deploy JMS implementations, customers carefully manage the deployed topics and queues. In the latter environment, if you don't associate channel to "Destination" the assembler cannot design around one of the most critical aspects of the messaging infrastructure, namely the scarce resource of destinations. So here I am, building a composite, and I want to, from the bottom up discover precisely how many topics I need in order for my application to deploy. If channels are merely scopes, I have *no* way to do that. So here's a radical thought. We split the notion of channel into two parts: the notion of "eventScope" and the notion of "destination." Destinations get bindings, whereas scopes merely have intents for bindings. I think this split solves a number of conceptual difficulties. -Eric. On 1/11/11 2:29 AM, Peter Niblett wrote: OFBD238C97.A9B1732F-ON80257815.0038F300-80257815.003998B6@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">Eric |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]