Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of koolvivek2006@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=FidiwSDtkrXgVeTz8UE2ImTsZQgCGmBqOt/D1iy5IyexbLn6IkY/FmSDk22qQP2p15
         O+UYIp7KvltRdvX9XaC3TaWerVhuN76G/36qKrD5/Y07dnjj6pnd7Xxe2WhgsqKD0wk7
         gsOPB+HbG7HG3DPJbRyUu4CY4jpsrpRLy/1H4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimS=H7mBcfnTDNdae998ppxro7XV6U3AgG0RDu4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikwrLh1er8cOsd_uaVibW0g0yLuzbwkbkd3ZbDj@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=2hDEnWaG2u97W7A1Fnd7=+7wd+bta_TF2VXDD@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=Eo1skTqug6+PDYYfOYsqGF9JqAjEKi1STF7rT@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikyr8VG_R6xPV_aLJe=3UT_M8YRk+eCYrG-sSQ8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C62B90E.5010301@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTikKwS_BYeET82h6rCmt4UrNT7CmbuZatQnU7=Cq@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimS=H7mBcfnTDNdae998ppxro7XV6U3AgG0RDu4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:22:30 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=cfzK5R_RagPzxaLzYOwO-h_3QZy_HXSg4EwDy@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comparison with RabbitMQ
From: vivek agarwal <koolvivek2006@gmail.com>
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c14c4ede457048df2d178

--0015174c14c4ede457048df2d178
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

So, suppose, if I provide a API for my users to access Qpid, and allow them
to dequeue data and I send the data back over the network to them. Now
unless, they acknowledge that they have processed the data, I may receieve
thousand such requests (or more). I want to keep the data around, but would
not be able to maintain the track of session object for each such dequeue
request.

I dont want my users to worry about using qpid, so I give them very simple
API abstracting the details of connection, connection factory and all this.

I think this is not a very rare use-case, and I would like to know, if there
is any work around for acknowledgment in such situations.

Thanks,
Vivek


On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:23 AM, vivek agarwal <koolvivek2006@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Do we have a API for direct AMQP over Apache Qpid, instead of going
> through
> > JMS?
>
> We have through experience found out that most use cases can be met
> with pure JMS + configuration.
> The new addressing syntax give the JMS user a lot of flexibility in
> leveraging the AMQP features.
> Another benefit is that you could easily switch to another AMQP
> version or another vendor that supports JMS without having to change
> code.
> The C++ and Python clients have also started to support a high level
> messaging API instead of something very close to the protocol.
> It allows a developer to think more in high level messaging concepts
> instead of worrying about every detail of the protocol.
>
> If you are unsure, please feel free to discuss your use cases and we
> are happy to help you in figuring out the configuration etc.
>
> > Also, I wanted to enquire if its implements AMQP .10 fully.
>
> Yes, the Qpid JMS client implements the 0-10 version.
>
> > I have a very specific use-case, where a consumer may consume a message,
> and
> > acknowledge it after a long processing. So can it be done without keeping
> > the Session object ( through which I received the message) open?
>
> You can  use the client ack mode in JMS for this.
> But whether you use JMS or an API closer to the protocol, you still
> need to keep the session object open as the message delivery was done
> within the context of that session.
> May I know what your concern is in keeping the session object around?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Vivek
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/11/2010 03:27 PM, Rajith Attapattu wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:57 AM, vivek agarwal<koolvivek2006@gmail.com
> >
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the reply.
> >>>> We are planning to use a Java broker as most of our applications are
> in
> >>>> Java. Will this affect performance?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> As Gordon mentioned, please try both the Java and C++ broker and see
> >>> what fits your needs.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually I just said try out the Java broker (as that was your preferred
> >> option) to confirm it meets your needs (I believe it will).
> >>
> >> Not that I'd want to put you off trying the c++ broker out as well of
> >> course if you have the interest :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> >> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> >> Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rajith Attapattu
> Red Hat
> http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:users-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>

--0015174c14c4ede457048df2d178--