activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Pluggable Brokers...
Date Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:03:25 GMT
If there was a semantic behavior in common where this would be
possible, we probably wouldn't need any improvements at all.

For instance, when you receive a message, activemq is blocking a
thread, while it should be asynchronous on the server, a callback be
sent to the client whenever it was possible, from a callback handler.

It's different how lockings will happen, what makes a common API even
more unlikely.

Besides, It gets a bit recursive really, implementing an interface to
the broker implementing the broker.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems unlikely to be possible.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:23 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

Clebert Suconic

View raw message