activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: jencks or spring 2.0
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:28 GMT
On 7/27/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/06, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/27/06, Paul French <paul.french@frenchiesystems.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks James, Judging from the mailing lists you are a very busy man!!
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstood my question?
> > >
> > > Does Jencks pool sessions OR connections when using JMS?
> >
> > It pools both
> >
> >
> > > Using Spring SingleConnectionFactory we reuse the same connection.
> > However
> > > Spring will create a new session and consumer/producer on the fly when
> > using
> > > the JmsTemplate. Hence my question:
> > >
> > >
> > > Is a new session object fairly lightweight? (from the point of view of
> > > creating it)
> >
> > Not in term of latency as it requires a blocking request-response with
> > a broker. Ditto when creating/closing producers/consumers.
>
>
> Actually, creating/closing a session and producer uses async one way
> messages.  So, latencey should not be an issue unless you are bandwith
> constrained.
> But creating/closing consumers does use a blocking RPC.

Thanks for the correction - you're right - DOH. I always thought there
were all sync - didn't realise how clever ActiveMQ was :)

I kinda thought creating a producer might have to check security on
the broker too? (I guess we can always do that check on the send()
call).
-- 

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/

Mime
View raw message