activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Pluggable Brokers...
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 08:01:44 GMT
So I haven't had the time to research this - but as lack of instant 
feedback is interpreted as ignoring, I believe this has merit - but will 
require some in depth investigation.

> James Carman <mailto:james@carmanconsulting.com>
> 8 April 2015 08:13
> Pluggable *within* ActiveMQ. That is what doesn't exist. The idea is that
> the underlying engine could be optimized on a case-by-case basis. For
> instance, you may be able to streamline the implementation of a broker 
> that
> doesn't require persistence at all. Right now, we have one implementation
> that tries to be the end-all-be-all solution for everything.
>
>
> Jim Gomes <mailto:jgomes@apache.org>
> 8 April 2015 07:45
> I'm with Guillaume on this. From the NMS perspective, the broker 
> already is
> a plugin implementation. I don't understand why it would need to go any
> deeper than that. NMS can talk to TIBCO or ActiveMQ brokers via one common
> API. The idea of pluggable brokers already exists.
>
>
> Guillaume Nodet <mailto:gnodet@apache.org>
> 30 March 2015 16:32
> Fwiw, the whole broker implementation looks like an implementation detail
> from a user point of view that uses the JMS spec... ;-)
>
>
> Hadrian Zbarcea <mailto:hzbarcea@gmail.com>
> 30 March 2015 16:12
> +1.
>
> The blocking today it merely an implementation detail than can be 
> addressed.
>
> Hadrian
>
>

Mime
View raw message