activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Leonard <>
Subject Re: Stomp/Perl usage?
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:57:55 GMT
James Strachan wrote:
> On 7/13/06, Peter Leonard <> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> I've been researching ActiveMQ as a potential solution for a system I'm
>> working on, and I was hoping for a little feedback from the AMQ 
>> community.
>> Is anyone out there using AMQ to support applications written in Perl?
>> I've found the Stomp/Perl client, but it's described as being of
>> Alpha-quality, and it doesn't seem like there's much in terms of
>> community or support specifically for it.
>> Assuming that the Perl API for Stomp is in need of some TLC (not an
>> insurmountable issue on my end), how is the general Stomp interface at
>> this point?
> Stomp support is good; we've lots of clients so far and the protocol
> has been well and trully hammered...
> Though there are sometimes some gremlins with certain clients; but the
> clients are generally simple enough to be easy to fix if you hit any
> issues. (e.g. the perl client is quite small and pretty simple code to
> fix if there's anything you need changing etc).

Sounds good - is there anyone out there using the Perl client that could 
shed any light on the situation WRT Perl?  I've perused the client 
source, and it's extremely spartan - I'm sure it works, but it could 
definitely use some polishing.  :)

To confirm - all the Stomp clients are implementing what's documented here:

Is there anything beyond that doc?  For example, failover (see further 
commentary below).

I can see the desire to implement both failover & perhaps auto-discovery 
in the Perl client (in addition, setting it up as an easily-installable 
Perl module, like any other CPAN module).  Are there other features in 
the other Stomp clients that would be desireable in the Perl client?

>> (Some quick background - the system requirements would be approximately
>> 500 messages/second over an HA environment, supporting message
>> persistance for potentially several hours, if possible.  Early reading
>> with AMQ suggests that setting up a cluster would be the way to go).
> Yeah - the perl would connect to a Master which could failover to a 
> Slave...
> the only thing that needs adding is the ability to failver in the Perl
> client which I don't think is there yet.

Funny you should bring that up.  :)

I'm a little confused with the AMQ docs with respect to MasterSlave 
versus clustering versus other topologies.

Some of the docs talk about MasterSlave as the way to implement HA 
setups, but then there are other docs talking about clustering brokers 
to create a messaging fabric, which suggests a network of equals.

To add to the confusion, the website differentiates between "Broker 
Clusters" and "Networks of Brokers", talking about them as two different 
things, but yet the paragraphs describing the two terms seem somewhat alike:

Some insight would be appreciated - perhaps the answer to this question 
would be best -

If you had to set up AMQ to support 500 messages/second, in HA fashion, 
with message persistance  (so clients could retrieve old messages) and 
you had a network of 10-15 machines that would run services interacting 
with AMQ, how would you set it up?

Would you set up 2-3 dedicated boxes for AMQ brokers?  Would you run AMQ 
brokers on some or all of those servers (given that they have excess 
capacity) instead?

I know that some of this is more of a philosophical battle, and I'm not 
trying to start a holy war of any kind.  I am personally a little 
hesitant about the Master/Slave relationship, if only because I know it 
from the RDBMS world, and I know the hell that can arise when a Master 
DB blows up.  If a messaging fabric makes that problem go away, I'm a 
happy camper.

	Thank you for your time,


View raw message