Mailing-List: contact dev-help@streams.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAL8syOa_oyw6JKfrKm0xXMjwGq2+-r1hdcAPGNHda5H+0Ymgmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT149-W27412388CB31142AAA88388A210@phx.gbl>
	<CAL8syOa_oyw6JKfrKm0xXMjwGq2+-r1hdcAPGNHda5H+0Ymgmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:14:56 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFNO4HgT4p9duu-f_7tmA0+rrwfk-JZ8P7z1RWi_KaueOkdjEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Use of ActiveMQ
From: Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>
To: dev@streams.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c18e7a20028004e6c235ed

--001a11c18e7a20028004e6c235ed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Failover, load_balancing......


On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Jason Letourneau
<jletourneau80@gmail.com>wrote:

> Performance more than anything for passing between components but also
> for advanced messaging patterns or systems that might be interested in
> wiretapping the JMS queues - http would lock us into point to point
> messaging between all the components, though I guess you could just
> add multiple outbound routes for http...
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Danny Sullivan <dsullivan7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey Everyone,
> > Is there a reason to use ActiveMQ in Streams at all? I noticed the
> following in the streamsCamelContext.xml:
> > <!--split activities on Q, waiting for aggregation -->        <route>
>          <from uri="direct:activityQ"/>            <inOnly
> uri="activemq:queue:activities"/>        </route>
> >         <route>            <from uri="activemq:queue:activities"/>
>      <aggregate completionInterval="500" groupExchanges="true">
>    <correlationExpression>                    <constant>true</constant>
>            </correlationExpression>                <bean
> ref="activityService" method="receiveExchange"/>            </aggregate>
>      </route>
> >
> > I replace this with the following and got the same functionality:
> > <!--split activities on Q, waiting for aggregation -->        <route>
>          <from uri="direct:activityQ"/>            <aggregate
> completionInterval="500" groupExchanges="true">
>  <correlationExpression>                    <constant>true</constant>
>          </correlationExpression>                <bean
> ref="activityService" method="receiveExchange"/>            </aggregate>
>      </route>
> > This makes sense conceptually because what we currently have is a POST
> method reaching the server and being sent to the same server via JMS. Is
> there a reason to use a messaging system rather than have the streams sent
> and received via http? Either Camel or Spring MVC should be able to
> accomplish this. What I'd like to do is set up single endpoints for
> publisher registration, subscriber registration, publishing streams, and
> receiving streams in Camel (because Storm unfortunately doesn't look like
> it provides support for http routing). Storm would process all the data
> coming in from Camel and output it to the Cassandra DB. Receiving streams
> would operate much in the same way it currently does: by refreshing the
> stream from the database.
> > Danny
>

--001a11c18e7a20028004e6c235ed--