From users-return-29267-apmail-activemq-users-archive=activemq.apache.org@activemq.apache.org Wed Nov 9 15:31:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 06DBA753C for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 65414 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2011 15:31:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 65390 invoked by uid 500); 9 Nov 2011 15:31:49 -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 65382 invoked by uid 99); 9 Nov 2011 15:31:49 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:31:49 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of chubrilo@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.43] (HELO mail-fx0-f43.google.com) (209.85.161.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:31:41 +0000 Received: by fabs1 with SMTP id s1so788066fab.2 for ; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:31:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=RAfO9f4wcvTzdOO1CvMmv0qGqRz4jgRM9L+xTWaRDMY=; b=gbTUA0iK3g9otwH2XospryWRZusxzFfaKZJCp0Lf381goQOMpx9+qODZveyIHrV3+v 8fO5BKPce3JiAOQLE9G9gcVL/X8s5QSUtkNvXpAd5tTjs41tPeMZps3lAdC+aIq5AF9D GkaGMVcr33GLD2XPo40rY/Kip0q7uJkjBx+n8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.92.135 with SMTP id r7mr5608189fam.35.1320852681541; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:31:21 -0800 (PST) Sender: chubrilo@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.96.142 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:31:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7CBAC69E-63EE-4DAA-B362-074AB9103097@planet57.com> Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 16:31:21 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tRIDAEF_B5mRSHa3w2GYZjPLc70 Message-ID: Subject: Re: HTTP transport From: Dejan Bosanac To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151748e09ce246ef04b14efaac X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --00151748e09ce246ef04b14efaac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 No, http transport is JMS compliant Regards -- Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb ----------------- The experts in open source integration and messaging - http://fusesource.com ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, James Green wrote: > Are there operational disadvantages to using HTTP transport? > > I am thinking in terms of things like acknowledgements - behavioural > changes like Stomp vs Openwire. > > James > > On 8 November 2011 10:14, Dejan Bosanac wrote: > > > Hi there are quite some folks that are using it in production, so it's > > stable enough. > > > > The main reason to use this protocol is if you need to go through some > > firewall and you can't let regular openwire traffic through it. It will > > basically use XStream to marshal messages to XML and send them using http > > to the broker. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Regards > > -- > > Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb > > ----------------- > > The experts in open source integration and messaging - > > http://fusesource.com > > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM, James Green > >wrote: > > > > > This is of interest to me too. > > > > > > Could use a description of it's behaviour which that page does not > > provide. > > > > > > James > > > > > > On 8 November 2011 01:45, Jason Dillon wrote: > > > > > > > ... is this any good? I keep getting folks in the backseat making > > > > tunneling over HTTP a meta-requirement. Are there any significant > > issues > > > > with using the http[s] transport in the activemq-optional module for > > > this? > > > > Will use of it totally kill performance? > > > > > > > > Documentation is a bit weak here, I've just found this: > > > > > > > > http://activemq.apache.org/http-and-https-transports-reference.html > > > > > > > > Which points to a bunch of other places which point out issues. I'm > > > > unsure what is resolved and what is still pending. > > > > > > > > I'm going to play with it and run some tests, but I was curious if > the > > > > community has collected any intel on use of this transport already? > > > > > > > > --jason > > > > > > --00151748e09ce246ef04b14efaac--