Return-Path: 
 <users-return-9853-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 71418 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2007 13:12:35 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Jul 2007 13:12:35 -0000
Received: (qmail 8085 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2007 13:12:35 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8053 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jul 2007 13:12:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@activemq.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@activemq.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@activemq.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.activemq.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8039 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jul 2007 13:12:35 -0000
Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:12:35 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [144.140.83.156] (HELO omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com)
 (144.140.83.156)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:12:31 -0700
Received: from oaamta08ps.mx.bigpond.com ([138.217.158.224])
          by omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP
          id
 <20070710131208.KCGS1991.omta04ps.mx.bigpond.com@oaamta08ps.mx.bigpond.com>
          for <users@activemq.apache.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:12:08 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [138.217.158.224])
          by oaamta08ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP
          id <20070710131208.HDCS3831.oaamta08ps.mx.bigpond.com@[127.0.0.1]>
          for <users@activemq.apache.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:12:08 +0000
Message-ID: <469385B8.9010204@comware.com.au>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:12:24 +1000
From: Jim Alateras <jima@comware.com.au>
Reply-To: jima@comware.com.au
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Creating MessageConsumer overhead
References: <11476576.post@talk.nabble.com> <46919231.8000406@exist.com>
 <ec6e67fd0707091337ka3a1f33t6c25a157814cb7c7@mail.gmail.com>
 <11515312.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <ec6e67fd0707100103v518e3b7btcd75d8a5b1c7e066@mail.gmail.com>
 <11517383.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <11517383.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

Just a general question about the overhead on creating MessageConsumer 
instances. Is it efficient to create MessageConsumers for relatively 
short conversations.

For example a loop which basically checks for a message, executes a 
policy on the message and then sleeps for some interval. Would it be 
efficient to create a new MessageConsumer at the start of each iteration.

cheers
</jima>