Johan Eltes wrote:
> >
> > No specific binding. However, JDBC latency is a matter of performance,
> > resources, and optimization. JMS latency is in the application domain - if
> > the sending side of the application does not send a message, the lateny is
> > equal to the timeout period.
>
> Yes, but the scenario is to call a service that is implemented as a server in a JMS
>request-reply senario - i.e. the responder to the request consumes the request
>message and sends a response message in the same thread of execution. With other
>words: we are discussing service request as stated in section 6.14 ("Request/Reply
>abstraction") of the JMS spec.
>
> > Specifying a timeout of, say, 60 seconds, can
> > ruin you whole day (as well as your thread pools).
Johan,
You are correct - it will work. But as Avi points out, if the legacy system
slows down your day will be ruined, either because every request times out or
because your server gets clogged up with blocked beans.
If you are sure your legacy system will never slow down, then go ahead,
otherwise look for a more robust solution.
Ian
========================================
Ian McCallion
Alexis Systems Limited
Romsey, UK
Tel: +44 1794 514883
Fax: +44 1794 501692
========================================
===========================================================================
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".
