James, I thought the session, producer and consumer objects were "lightweight" objects that take only a small amount of time to initialise ?
Peter James.Strachan wrote: > > FWIW there's no need to pool the ConnectionFactory and you only need a > single Connection object (so I guess thats a kind of pooling, just a > really simple pool :) but the session/producer/consumer objects should > definitely be pooled. > > On 9/14/06, javaxmlsoapdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Absolutely yes. you should use pooling for JMS factory, JMS connection, >> consumers etc. These are expensive resources. look at Jencks for pooling. >> >> petera wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > Is it advisable to use connection pooling with ActiveMQ connections ? >> > >> > TIA Peter >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Connection-pooling-tf2272704.html#a6313305 >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Connection-pooling-tf2272704.html#a6320689 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User forum at Nabble.com.
