Just a quick note about persistence, which was discussed while I was away.
As Rafi pointed out, we do have a generic interface that different persistence implementations can implement. Also note that the way it integrates with the configuration system means that the provider can add arbitrary configuration elements to config.xml and pick them up quite easily (e.g. JDBC url and driver would be required by a JDBC implementation). I think Colin hit the nail on the head when he mentioned HOWL. The reason I picked BDB originally was because it is essentially a high performance logger which I believe we need for performance reasons. I admit I have not benchmarked a straight JDBC implementation but I would expect it to be slower than BDB or (if it existed) a HOWL-based approach. As Rafi pointed out the implemtentation of a JDBC MessageStore would be relatively easily derivable from the BDB store implementation (in fact refactoring some of the BDB store into a common base class might be the best approach). Martin has also been working on getting the IBM JMS performance test harness to work with QPID, so if that is working we could hopefully be able to benchmark different approaches. RG
