activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From SuoNayi <>
Subject Reply:Re: Overhead of component creation to send message
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:35:10 GMT
With JmsTemplate, it's suffering to create and destory the underlying resource with any call
on it, so from Spring 2.5.3,CachingConnectionFactory is introduced with new features such
as caching connection,session,consumer and producer resouce.So donot be afraid of JmsTemplate

At 2011-11-18 18:27:40,"Dejan Bosanac" <> wrote:
>Hi Jason,
>those operations are costly and if your component must open/close it for
>every message it will affect performances. In those cases it is recommended
>to use pool connection factory which caches those object and improve
>See for some more info
>on this topic (in case of Spring)
>Dejan Bosanac -
>The experts in open source integration and messaging -
>ActiveMQ in Action -
>Blog -
>On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Jason Dillon <> wrote:
>> I'm wondering what sort of overhead there is to create and then close) the
>> components needed to send a message, specifically after you have a started
>> connection and using a vm:// transport.
>> I'm working on implementing distributed eventing for a server which
>> already has its own eventing built-in (so adapting its events to JMS
>> messages published to topics).  The events can come from any thread and be
>> sent to different topics based source event details.  That seems to mean
>> that for each local event I have to:
>> 1) reference destination
>> 2) create session
>> 3) create producer
>> 4) build message for event and send
>> 5 ) close producer and session (discard destination)
>> #1 looks like its just object creation, but has some parsing of physical
>> name (quite a few ops as it looks like)... so could potentially cache these
>> (trade a bit of memory for a string lookup over always creating new
>> instance)?
>> Not sure what overhead there is for #2, #3 or #5.  Is there any
>> documentation on roughly what these operations cost?
>> The destination + session could change so #3 would have to be done
>> anyways, hopefully its cheap?  If #2 is not super cheap, then perhaps its
>> better to have the local event handler queue up the publish in a
>> BlockingQueue (or similar) so that a single thread + session (or
>> potentially small pool of thread+session) could be used to a actually
>> perform the publish?
>> Does anyone have any insight on to what would be best option for least
>> overhead for this use-case?
>> --jason

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message