Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <16757334.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Fred D <fred.demetrioff@ttmsolutions.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: JDBC Database Persistence Question
In-Reply-To: <2b39c1040803170953t15f2a115x4bdb0d32c9d32558@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <2b39c1040803170953t15f2a115x4bdb0d32c9d32558@mail.gmail.com>


Hi Brian,

For your setup, the AMQ Message store (used by default with AMQ 5+) is
probably your best bet.

The real benefit for JDBC in Active MQ is that it supports a wide range of
platforms that you can utilize if you already have these deployed (reuse
your investment). As well you can handle some custom requirements perhaps
using the well understood JDBC API without having to learn the internals of
AMQ message store /KAHA.

Fred 

Brian Munroe-2 wrote:
> 
> I am trying to determine if JDBC database persistence makes sense in
> my application stack.  Currently I will deploying a single broker (AMQ
> 5.0) with about 6 queues.
> 
> What are some of the reasons someone would consider JDBC persistence?
> Personally, I'm fine with Kaha, but my boss would like me to
> investigate all the angles.
> 
> thanks
> 
> -- brian
> 
> 


-----
Goto www.ttmsolutions.com for a free ActiveMQ user guide 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JDBC-Database-Persistence-Question-tp16101354s2354p16757334.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.