Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RHBA-506: Use Initial context to retrieve connection factory #244

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sutaakar
Copy link
Contributor

@ederign Please take a look on this.

There are two possibilities how connect into the JMS broker.

  • Use local Initial context. This is the default option, use Initial context of application server where the Workbench is running. External JMS broker can be specified using this option by adding connection factory backed by proper resource adapter to the application server.

  • Use remote Initial context. This can be used for the case if the user wants to connect to external application server. In this case the user needs to add proper connection factory classes into server classpath (for example adding org.apache.activemq.artemis module as dependency of the Workbench).

By default there is used connection factory with JNDI java:/ConnectionFactory from local context, which is available by default.

@spolti
Copy link
Member

spolti commented Mar 19, 2018

The changes looks nice to me.
It will help us to made the cluster setup on OpenShift. In the current way the class was wrote not work for a external broker that needs to use a resource adapter, with this changes this configuration will be more flexible.

@ederign ederign requested a review from porcelli March 19, 2018 15:08
Copy link
Member

@ederign ederign left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We are discussing another alternative for this using MaaS.

@porcelli
Copy link
Member

@sutaakar did you manage to try the MaaS?

@sutaakar
Copy link
Contributor Author

@porcelli Not yet, I will test that today or in the Monday.

Copy link
Member

@porcelli porcelli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we shouldn't replace the existing solution, this PR should provide a configurable alternative, not a replamenent

@sutaakar
Copy link
Contributor Author

sutaakar commented May 2, 2018

Replaced by #325

@sutaakar sutaakar closed this May 2, 2018
@sutaakar sutaakar deleted the RHBA-506 branch May 2, 2018 14:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants