Alvin, Perhaps you could say a bit more about why you chose asynchronous messaging for this, or why you didn't chose a synchronous model. How long do you expect your messages to live before they are processed, and how long do they take to process? How often would you need to cancel an unprocessed message? And how many requests do you expect this application to scale up to?
Also what are your performance concerns with JMS on the same machine as the EJB container? I would expect that messages are queued and then processed very quickly assuming the sender and receiver are both up at the same time. Chris Thompson Bean-test Developer http://www.empirix.com -----Original Message----- From: Alvin Wang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:11 AM Subject: performance of JMS within the same container Hi! We are using MDB to implement asynchronous request handling. And the senders (like, session beans) are within the same container as MDBs. We feel that JMS is more for distributed communications, instead of communications within the same containe. So we are concerned about the performance of JMS in the same machine. Can anyone give us some suggesitons? Thanks! Alvin =========================================================================== 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".
