Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 98560 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2006 19:26:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jul 2006 19:26:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 28573 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2006 19:26:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 28413 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jul 2006 19:26:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 28404 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jul 2006 19:26:00 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:26:00 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of chirino@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.169 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.169] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:25:58 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so438565ugd for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=mMY9YlU5fH10z+a4MdyPzzpNu3XK6k/ZN01F4/ORJHj69uHy4SkHm8N2YG/uFtFrsHCFPQRtlY3ilZ9bPhqVnl5Nj2LnuJxO+QnsYsCLY1rliZRCxEdB/XOnu56xmvuSKL2MFMSPNPpC3Zv0Y3wEcG+DypwnECTZy0V5y0LPGyo= Received: by 10.67.93.7 with SMTP id v7mr425732ugl; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.243.7 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:25:36 -0400 From: "Hiram Chirino" Sender: chirino@gmail.com To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Firewall HTTP Tunneling performance In-Reply-To: <5312742.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_19608_18322630.1152818736636" References: <5312742.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 92827ba6065fd032 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_19608_18322630.1152818736636 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Yes it can be done. It's less optimal than TCP, but depending on you message load, you may not notice. On 7/13/06, kj1003 wrote: > > > Hi, > > We are considering using Active MQ for a messaging project. We recently > found out that most of our servers and client will have firewalls and > poking > holes may not be an option. Can ActiveMQ be used to use HTTP Tunneling? I > see some posts but not sure if someone has tried it. > > How bad is the performance and reliability hit if HTTP Tunneling is > enabled? > > Thanks. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Firewall-HTTP-Tunneling-performance-tf1938748.html#a5312742 > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com. > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com ------=_Part_19608_18322630.1152818736636--