Hey
punit malik wrote:
> If yes, don't you think there will be big overhead as i am using the whole
> JMS mechanism, which i think is meant for guaranteed delivery to remotely
> stationed systems.
> Please let me know if I am wrong?
There is nothing in the JMS specification that says that implementations
must use guaranteed delivery etc. As with EJB it is very possible to do
lightweight implementations and still keep the JMS interfaces. There are
switches in the JMS interface that lets you use different levels of
reliability (see JSM1.0 section 4.10).
/Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~ricob684
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
