geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: Status of JMS
Date Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:44:55 GMT
On 4 Nov 2003, at 16:22, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> I'd rather explore JMX, I've been looking at JBOSS 4 and its JMX
>> architecture seems to describe what I'd like to see James have.
>
> JMX and JMS don't serve the same purposes.  JMS *might* (and I stress 
> that
> it is only a possibility, and not one that I'm overly convinced about)
> provide a spool implementation.
>
>> I'm certainly not convinced that JMS is really the best approach. It 
>> would
>> be sadly ironic if we end up with James performance suffering because 
>> of
>> JMS queue issues.

I doubt that a decent JMS implementation would ever be slower than a 
hand-hacked-together communication mechanism (especially if things like 
flow control, auto-reconnect and so on are requirements). Though it 
depends what you're trying to do I guess.


>> OTOH if it works I'm for it. :-)
>
> That is my position, as well.  Considering that I used to write 
> real-time
> embedded kernels for a living (albiet a couple of decades ago), 
> performance
> is never far from my mind.  Personally, I think that JMS is overkill, 
> but it
> has been recommended that we look at it, so I'm asking the geronimo 
> team
> what the status is so that we can evaluate.  I've other alternatives in
> mind, as well.

I'd use OpenJMS or JGroups for now. There is no JMS implementation 
inside Geronimo yet & I can't imagine there would be one for a while.

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


Mime
View raw message