From users-return-7744-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Mon Mar 05 18:48:53 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 36048 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2007 18:48:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2007 18:48:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 46198 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2007 18:49:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 46179 invoked by uid 500); 5 Mar 2007 18:49:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 46170 invoked by uid 99); 5 Mar 2007 18:49:00 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:49:00 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.21.53.35] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (72.21.53.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:48:48 -0800 Received: from [72.21.53.38] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HOIEW-0001Kl-0U for users@activemq.apache.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:48:28 -0800 Message-ID: <9317788.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:48:27 -0800 (PST) From: rbector To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Evaluating Embedded ActiveMQ - questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: bector.online@gmail.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hello I am currently evaluating the feasibility of using ActiveMQ for our system (which is a bunch of applications who want to interact using JMS). I had a few questions which I thought some of you may have answers to: 1) We'd prefer to use the embedded version of the broker. All communicating applications would use the embedded broker so there would be no *server* running. I've read that this Topology is supported by ActiveMQ. What are the downsides of using this topology ? The upsides to me are - higher performance because of one less hop and less maintenance. Comments ? 2) I would like to have the ability to create topics such that messages on them are never deleted. Essentially, any consumer could attach to the topic any point in time (even 30 days after the topic was created) and receive older messages (Ideally - it should have the choice to start receiving messages from a certain point in time in the past or from a certain ID). The idea behind this approach is that consumers are more decoupled. They could process some messages, checkpoint them internally and go away and come back later. I would like to try to understand if this is directly or indirectly supported in ActiveMQ (or other JAVA based messaging systems that people know of) 3) If there are n consumers interested in a certain topic, some of the consumers may be away when messages on that topic are published. Whats the behavior of ActiveMQ in such a scenario ? Is the subscription information maintained on a persistent basis (we'd like it to be). (This is also in the context of embedded broker - the broker is embedded inside the producers/consumers) Thank you in advance for your answers. best, - Rajeev -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Evaluating-Embedded-ActiveMQ---questions-tf3350861s2354.html#a9317788 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.