activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Pluggable Brokers...
Date Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:32:18 GMT
Fwiw, the whole broker implementation looks like an implementation detail
from a user point of view that uses the JMS spec... ;-)

2015-03-30 17:12 GMT+02:00 Hadrian Zbarcea <>:

> +1.
> The blocking today it merely an implementation detail than can be
> addressed.
> Hadrian
> On 03/30/2015 09:23 AM, James Carman wrote:
>> All,
>> With all the talk over the last week or so regarding the "Broker
>> Wars", especially after reading Rob Davies' email about how the broker
>> has been tweaked through the years to emphasize different aspects
>> (long-term storage for instance), it occurred to me that we might be
>> able to move past all this craziness by providing an abstraction layer
>> above the broker and try to make them "pluggable."
>> If there really are situations where the broker needs to focus on one
>> particular aspect of message delivery, that sounds to me like the
>> "strategy" pattern.  If a broker can be written in such a way that it
>> is allowed to focus on certain aspects and maybe ignore or completely
>> forego others, then it would seem to me that the code could be made
>> much more straight-forward, because it doesn't have to try to be the
>> "swiss army knife", solving everyone's problems at one time.
>> Of course, this may be just a pipe dream and there's no way to do it
>> (admittedly I'm not terribly familiar with the code), but I thought
>> I'd throw it out there as a possible approach.  I mean, we do this
>> sort of thing already with the persistence providers, so maybe there's
>> an opportunity here as well.
>> Thoughts?
>> James

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message