Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of james.strachan@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.169 as permitted sender)
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=l/O7WOcpFKiADlURFqG1/xmg38sQ39/tmQN0ihweDNNh924XGhPeLJSEsqP0O8sUdnPd1whouslj3NB0R4PYQxCgdMyiYyg4jxYKGhT+JVTPF2PDswJclsCCOyZbpAoXcj5yM+J2NGLuTbzLAxLZrD3ca3wfWvmqMaQhB83qC1E=
Message-ID: <ec6e67fd0610180853s150c3f51u1beb6c538349e10d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:53:47 +0100
From: "James Strachan" <james.strachan@gmail.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: NMS problem
In-Reply-To: <6879166.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <6866102.post@talk.nabble.com> <6867337.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <ec6e67fd0610180022k580f755bt1eb371f1a40549fa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6879166.post@talk.nabble.com>

On 10/18/06, robottaway <rottaway@musiciansfriend.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry James I am just a picky guy :) I know I won't need to do multiple
> connections quickly but I was just pointing it out (and wondering why it
> takes so long to connect with NMS). Is there a way to speed up the
> connection process? With STOMP or the normal JMS AMQ connections are fast.
> Is the protocol in C# just heavier? Or is it C# itself is causing the
> slowness.

The NMS cilent should be equivalent to the Java JMS client in terms of
its operations.

FWIW we just changed message acknowledgement to be asynchronous like
the Java client and fixed a couple of bugs with NMS.


> Also would you have an suggestions on my problem with 4.0.1 vs. 4.0.2. 4.0.1
> does not seem to work with the head revision of the C# NMS client. So I will
> need to use AMQ 4.0.2. I am using Servicemix to route data between services
> right now, which relies on AMQ 4.0.1. Could I run a separate instance of AMQ
> 4.0.2 and bridge it to the 4.0.1 instance running in Servicemix? Would this
> be stable/robust/doable for a good size volume of messages?

We should be able to do a release of servicemix with 4.0.2 very soon.
Then again when 4.1 is out :)

-- 

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