Mined Opinions For API: javax.jms

This tab contains all the opinions collected from Stack Overflow about the API. The other tabs present summaries of the opinions using different algorithms.
  • Thanks for your suggestions.. details
  • Could you please help me out.. details
  • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload.. details
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.. details
  • Technically, this works quite well for us.. details
  • If manual creation is required, automatic generation of a template wouldl be great.. details
  • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated.. details
  • No support for creating samples.. details
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.. details
  • WADL doesnt appear to support my unique use of the JMS transport either, though i don't see why the wadl:resource and wadl:path would not work with jms endpoints.. details
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.. details
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.. details
  • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated.. details
  • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily.. details
  • Essentially the approach recommended URL_http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3953692/syntax-for-documenting-json-structure [here] .. details
  • Our system is a large, in-house warehouse management system with a lot of process that commonly have both synchronous and asynchronous flows.. details
  • 3. documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly.. details
  • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi-line string literals 2.. details
  • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services.. details
  • No support for example auto-generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL.. details
  • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method/parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc.. details
  • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi-line string literals 2.. details
  • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients.. details
Summaries the opinions about javax.jms using topic modeling.
  • 0. message documentation http payload ability suggestion technically system template manual: 5
    • Thanks for your suggestions.. details
    • Technically, this works quite well for us.. details
    • If manual creation is required, automatic generation of a template wouldl be great.. details
    • No support for creating samples.. details
    • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload.. details
  • 1. wadl documentation reliability provide lot system unique resource path doesnt: 8
    • Could you please help me out.. details
    • Our system is a large, in-house warehouse management system with a lot of process that commonly have both synchronous and asynchronous flows.. details
    • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.. details
    • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated.. details
    • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily.. details
    • Essentially the approach recommended here .. details
    • WADL doesnt appear to support my unique use of the JMS transport either, though i don't see why the wadl:resource and wadl:path would not work with jms endpoints.. details
    • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.. details
  • 0. wadl service javadoc documentation generate inside multi literal result consume: 6
    • No support for example auto-generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL.. details
    • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method/parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc.. details
    • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services.. details
    • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi-line string literals 2.. details
    • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients.. details
    • 3. documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly.. details
Summaries of the opinions about javax.jms using three algorithms (Textrank, Lexrank and Luhn) adopted from extractive summarization. Each algorithm was used once for the positive opinions and once for the negative opinions.
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability .
  • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload .
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS .
  • Technically, this works quite well for us .
  • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated .
  • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily .
  • Essentially the approach recommended here .
  • No support for creating samples .
  • Could you please help me out .
  • Thanks for your suggestions .
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability .
  • Our system is a large, in house warehouse management system with a lot of process that commonly have both synchronous and asynchronous flows .
  • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload .
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS .
  • Technically, this works quite well for us .
  • If manual creation is required, automatic generation of a template wouldl be great .
  • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated .
  • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily .
  • Essentially the approach recommended here .
  • WADL doesnt appear to support my unique use of the JMS transport either, though i don't see why the wadl:resource and wadl:path would not work with jms endpoints .
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability .
  • Our system is a large, in house warehouse management system with a lot of process that commonly have both synchronous and asynchronous flows .
  • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload .
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS .
  • Technically, this works quite well for us .
  • If manual creation is required, automatic generation of a template wouldl be great .
  • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated .
  • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily .
  • No support for creating samples .
  • WADL doesnt appear to support my unique use of the JMS transport either, though i don't see why the wadl:resource and wadl:path would not work with jms endpoints .
  • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services .
  • No support for example auto generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL .
  • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc .
  • 3 documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly .
  • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi line string literals 2 .
  • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients .
  • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services .
  • No support for example auto generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL .
  • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc .
  • 3 documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly .
  • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi line string literals 2 .
  • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients .
  • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services .
  • No support for example auto generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL .
  • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc .
  • 3 documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly .
  • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi line string literals 2 .
  • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients .
Summaries of the opinions about javax.jms using Opinosis, an abstractive summarizer of opinions..
Summaries of the opinions about javax.jms using contrastive viewpoints. Each entry contains a pair of positive and negative sentences that are most likely discussing about similar API features.
Summaries of opinions about based on specific API aspects, such as, performance, usability, etc. The 'Overview' page provides an overview of the aspects detected in the opinions. The 'Trend' page shows the distribution of polarity over time for each aspect. The 'Positive Opinions' page groups positive opinions by the detected aspects. The 'Contrastive By Aspect' page shows paris of contrastive opinions under each aspect (where found).
Features:
  • Could you please help me out.
  • N/A
Documentation:
  • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.
  • 3. documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly.
Onlysentiment:
  • Thanks for your suggestions.
  • N/A
Performance:
  • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.
  • N/A
Usability:
  • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload.
  • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services.
  • Onlysentiment: 1
    1. general: 1
      • Thanks for your suggestions.. details
  • Performance: 1
    1. general: 1
      • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.. details
  • Documentation: 4
    1. general: 4
      • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.. details
      • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated.. details
      • On the plus side, documentation could be generated at runtime pretty easily.. details
      • Essentially the approach recommended URL_http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3953692/syntax-for-documenting-json-structure [here] .. details
  • Features: 1
    1. general: 1
      • Could you please help me out.. details
  • Usability: 9
    1. general: 9
      • Since we like JMS, and we like the ability to 'fall back' to HTTP for other clients, we prefer JSON messages as messages payload.. details
      • This gives a lot of the same benefits of REST services, but provides the reliability of JMS.. details
      • Technically, this works quite well for us.. details
      • If manual creation is required, automatic generation of a template wouldl be great.. details
      • This makes it much easier to find the documentation, and makes it much more likely that the documentation is kept updated.. details
      • No support for creating samples.. details
      • This decision provides excellent reliability and scalability.. details
      • WADL doesnt appear to support my unique use of the JMS transport either, though i don't see why the wadl:resource and wadl:path would not work with jms endpoints.. details
      • Our system is a large, in-house warehouse management system with a lot of process that commonly have both synchronous and asynchronous flows.. details
  • Documentation: 2
    1. general: 2
      • 3. documentation is available at runtime from the service, if invoked incorrectly.. details
      • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi-line string literals 2.. details
  • Usability: 5
    1. general: 5
      • As a result, we use JMS to expose endpoints for our services.. details
      • No support for example auto-generation, and in fact examples are a pain because they have to be xml encoded in the WADL.. details
      • In our case, I dont want to generate service objects from the WADL file, so using WADL means duplicating my method/parameter names in the WADL after i code them in java, which is harder than using javadoc.. details
      • Javadoc is terrible for generating examples in the documentation because it doesnt have multi-line string literals 2.. details
      • But moves us away from JSON, and make it harder to consume inside of javascript clients.. details