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 EDC3B10364 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 97027 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2013 21:13:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 96993 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2013 21:13:15 -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 96959 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2013 21:13:15 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:13:15 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of christian.posta@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.173 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.217.173] (HELO mail-lb0-f173.google.com) (209.85.217.173) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:13:10 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u14so9821242lbd.32 for ; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=onu3P2LsnbPljGTsX5jm7wZOfwo4bz7xnQz2dKge37g=; b=OVgAYGKDklRGan1c2Y+wXS0pwxWH7FtL7LflcSq2qbfjJI1yXluEz6/k9LLq90EWsp IALYkN4goBFHKz7Ky7Kvk03xUAIrY8PtrH8fbK7JW6GB5AIeBK1l+ykjY+Fc0WTqmDTg dsPqQwYt32l/jQTyGZx/xad4WFUvLcHQU00vC7U4uZe7w4qOzOz9WsZAoeSlZCLL8hsh uuum1NWJMorSfXMaS9svxwTJke+D9cpwO0Z4HpjmtgCBgvcaJD2XDv1GE8tz4zgZtdau mxOeNdv/+8f+kQSH3J2UEk9fUFfvPLvsBiawig8jQQHzGFJ4Z2QNV4j+rE2HuQ67mffK rQXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.180.104 with SMTP id dn8mr424336lac.48.1386191569360; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.212.69 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:12:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1385720963095-4674943.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1385720963095-4674943.post@n4.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:12:49 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Spring's CachingConnectionFactory vs ActiveMQ's PooledConnectionFactory From: Christian Posta To: "users@activemq.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org check this blog as well as the comments: http://bsnyderblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/tuning-jms-message-consumption-in.html On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Sophia Wright wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to JMS, can somebody please tell me differences between the Spring's > CachingConnectionFactory vs ActiveMQ's PooledConnectionFactory? Which is > suited for which use case? Benefits ? Drawbacks. > > Many thanks in advance! > > Thanks, > Sophia > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Spring-s-CachingConnectionFactory-vs-ActiveMQ-s-PooledConnectionFactory-tp4674943.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Christian Posta http://www.christianposta.com/blog twitter: @christianposta