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

Add better detection for Rabbit vs. JMS #80

Closed
gregturn opened this issue Oct 9, 2013 · 2 comments
Closed

Add better detection for Rabbit vs. JMS #80

gregturn opened this issue Oct 9, 2013 · 2 comments
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply

Comments

@gregturn
Copy link
Contributor

gregturn commented Oct 9, 2013

Right now, CLI detection of Rabbit vs. JMS requires a special annotation for each, due to name collisions of SimpleMessageLIstenerContainer.

  • If we see RabbitTemplate for a producer, we can flag it as Spring Rabbit.
  • If we see DefaultMessageListenerContainer, it's Spring JMS.
  • If we see SimpleMessageListenerContainer and it has a method starting with "setDestination*", it's also Spring JMS.
  • If it's SimpleMessageListenerContainer and it has a "setQueue*" method name, it's Spring Rabbit.
    These last two clues will require another AstUtils utility method designed to peek at method names for a given class node so we can deduce whether it's Spring JMS or Spring Rabbit.

With those changes, we can deprecate the @EnableRabbitMessaging and @EnableJmsMessaging annotations and eventually remove them.

@trisberg trisberg added this to the 1.1.4 milestone Jul 3, 2014
@philwebb philwebb removed this from the 1.1.4 milestone Jul 3, 2014
@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Mar 24, 2015

This is now handled via @EnableJms and @EnableRabbit that provides an explicit support of bringing the right dependencies and imports. I don't think there is anything more automated we could do at this point.

Is there a use case where adding that single annotation is an issue?

@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Aug 12, 2015

I think the current situation is just fine.

@snicoll snicoll closed this as completed Aug 12, 2015
@dsyer dsyer removed the icebox label Aug 12, 2015
@snicoll snicoll added status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply and removed type: enhancement A general enhancement labels Aug 12, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants