From users-return-16314-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Fri Oct 03 18:50:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87746 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2008 18:50:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2008 18:50:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 10791 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2008 18:50:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 10567 invoked by uid 500); 3 Oct 2008 18:50:20 -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 10556 invoked by uid 99); 3 Oct 2008 18:50:20 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:50:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:49:18 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Klpiq-000779-Gd for users@activemq.apache.org; Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:49:52 -0700 Message-ID: <19803553.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:49:52 -0700 (PDT) From: jmychasiw To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Message Persistance Question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: jmychasiw@gmail.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Greetings: We are currently evaluating ActiveMq 5.x We are trying to decide between AMQMessageStore and jdbc persistence to Oracle. The documentation seems to advocate for AMQMessageStore over jdbc. Our project requires that massages cannot be lost. What are reasons that I would pick one over the other? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Message-Persistance-Question-tp19803553p19803553.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.