On 1/3/07, drvillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi >> 1. Why is this different than calling Thread.sleep within an onMessage()? >> Anyway yes, this is something that I have thought of. > > Yup, that's pretty much it. But it is a sledgehammer. > yes, actually this was just to see if timing could help:) >> 2. > Yipe. You could want something like a compute server. You could do it > with a single compute queue but it'll double the number of hops in > your pipeline. (i.e. seed --> compute queue --> C --> q1 --> L1 --> > compute queue --> C --> q2 --> L2 etc.). > Mmhh, actually I'm not sure I understand what you mean...The flow of messages would be the same, what would the compute server actually do?
Ah, yes. I was thinking about something like this: http://www.artima.com/jini/jiniology/js2.html but done with JMS but on reflection it would be a pretty invasive change.
>> 3. yes, this is something that would help, but given the rate of message >> arrival >> wouldn't I insert too much overhead? > > You could sample them at whatever interval you prefer. > well, I'd have to do it every time I want to enqueue something, but probably there's some heuristic to be used. Thanks, again:) cheers Francesco -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Flow-control-on-a-recursive-system%2C-guidelines--tf2894291.html#a8141203 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
