incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Minimum footprint question about Glasgow
Date Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:15:26 GMT
If small footprint is your primary aim you might want to consider
using the Stomp protocol which is extremely easy to write a client for
(at the expense of some performance for high volume clients).

http://stomp.codehaus.org/Protocol

e.g. the entire Ruby client is a page or two of code (and its way more
advanced than you probably need) - or the .Net client is 2 trivial
classes.

http://svn.codehaus.org/stomp/trunk/ruby/lib/stomp.rb

You can generally write a Stomp client from scratch in a couple of
hours assuming you can figure out how to use a socket and parse
Strings.


On 8/4/06, Gordon Sim <gordon.sim@virgin.net> wrote:
> Good question, though one I do not have as yet an answer for. However,
> the classes used purely for the encoding/decoding in java are currently
> about 150K unoptimised. They do also rely on Mina at present which is
> 278K. There would be a small amount on top of this most to tie this all
> into a minimal api (the current jms adaptor layer is 136K on top of this
> as a rough guide, excluding some of the external dependencies like log4j
> & apache commons, none of which are currently critical). To this point,
> no attempt has been made to specifically keep the size of the
> implementation below a particular threshold and further optimisation
> could probably bring these numbers down (a less generic io framework
> than mina for example could be used and by being more limited in scope
> would bring the size down quite a bit I expect).
>
> At runtime, the protocol allows negotiation of the maximum framesize per
> connection, the minimum acceptable value being 4096 bytes. So a client
> could operate within a restricted memory environment if required. (Again
> though, the current java client has not been developed with this goal in
> mind).
>
> I hope that helps a little bit, though its rather imprecise(?)
>
> Coach Wei wrote:
> > Per Cliff Schmidt's suggestion, reposting the question here instead - so
> > please respond using this new thread:
> >
> > What is the possible (estimated) minimum implementation footprint (in
> > term of kilobytes or megabytes) to support AMQP network wire-level
> > protocol? I am asking this thinking of the possibility of using AMQP
> > protocol in mobile applications such as J2ME.
> >
> > ---Coach Wei
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: Cliff Schmidt [mailto:cliffschmidt@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:13 PM
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept Glasgow into Incubator
> >>
> >> Coach,
> >>
> >> If you don't view your question as related to the vote, would you mind
> >> reposting it to a separate or an existing thread about Glasgow?
> >>
> >> Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I like to keep vote
> >>
> > threads to
> >
> >> just votes and critical questions that were missed in the prior
> >>
> > discussion
> >
> >> (which, I admit, often doesn't happen).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Cliff
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message