Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6301 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2006 04:40:08 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Jul 2006 04:40:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 47702 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2006 04:40:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 47530 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jul 2006 04:40:08 -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 47521 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jul 2006 04:40:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:40:08 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.173] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:40:07 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o2so1101910uge for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:39:46 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=B7ju3ruIHoqEgHkvP9MgAj8Zn6RcKi1ei6nfLye9njM61tSMAgOZOObPUMhax/DPSg/iyxjKHvp/ILH0tk7oX1ISlnGzU1xoHiouhdgBLc+ETo7s3E6h+JBlzk+5M6dJY/MTlbUaeX3n2KmGpLpvs3dE4c/6X+A44uuJybE4D4c= Received: by 10.78.175.14 with SMTP id x14mr1252552hue; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.174.8 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:39:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:39:45 +0100 From: "James Strachan" To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Firewall HTTP Tunneling performance In-Reply-To: <44B783D4.8010907@csc.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5312742.post@talk.nabble.com> <44B783D4.8010907@csc.fi> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N It should do yes as its reusing a servlet engine (often an embedded Jetty) to deal with the HTTP side of things On 7/14/06, Aleksi Kallio wrote: > > > Sounds good! Does it support HTTPS? Can't check out myself, as HTTP is > not listed in the documentation available from ActiveMQ site. > > > > 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. > >> > >> > > > > > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/