Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> ..
> events to other VMs. Simple "EventSubject.getSubjectName()" should fix the
> problem. Any objections to adding this method? (Of course I can find ways
> around, but they are much uglier).
You are right. Making the simple string more meaningful was the main
reason for the 'owner' of the subject, which we made a class for the first
cut. The combination of owner and subject name is meant to be unique so
that two equally named subjects do not collide on the same bus; using a
class as namespace-enabled 'tag' was the first thing that came to my mind,
although I could immediately come up with scenarios where that would break
down as well. Maybe a unique name should be made of the class package and
subject name like e.g. "my.nifty.class/FooSubject", exposed via (say)
getSubjectIdentifier() and simply using getOwner()/getSubjectName() at
first..
This is basically an insolvable problem without central registry.
So just adding the getters won't do much harm for now, I guess.
Oh, just curious - any reasons why you are going for JMS directly?
JavaGroups really is nice since it works at an higher level, automatically
creating master/peers, taking care of delivery, removing dead peers and
reelecting a master etc. Have a look at the HSQLDB replication/clustering
whitepaper, it's really sweet.
Holger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 18:29:55 EDT