until Blackstone is released, but it seems a general question on features
already discussed public ally so here it goes).
What's the advantage of tapping into JMS as opposed to using async cfc calls
for a pure CF application?
This is an extension to Dick's earlier question about whether or not cf
should have built in totally transparent JMS support.
Thanks,
Sam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:05 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OpenJMS was JMS provider in anticipation of Blackstone
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:28:36 -0400, Samuel R. Neff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How does JMS compare to the ability to call CFC methods
> asynchronously (one
> > of the mentioned new features in Blackstone)?
>
> They're unrelated really. JMS is just a mechanism for sending /
> receiving data asynchronously usually in a hub and spoke architecture.
> You still have to write Java code to send / receive a message and do
> something with it.
>
> Blackstone's event gateway is really a framework for Java code to call
> CFC methods and get results back - so that you can arrange for CFC
> methods to handle non-HTTP requests. The Java code is the bridge
> between the non-HTTP request and the ColdFusion code.
>
> Consequently you can use the Blackstone event gateway framework to
> write Java to receive JMS messages and pass them to a CFC method for
> processing, just as you could receive SMS messages or any other
> protocol in Java and pass them to a CFC method.
>
> Does that clarify things?
> --
> Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
