Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Serge Knystautas wrote: > <snipped> > > I'm pretty excited about ActiveMQ (http://activemq.codehaus.org/) > > which we could bundle, and then provide any JMS integration. > > We can look, but I'm concerned about performance.
JMS is a specification, not a product. It covers several common types of inter-application messaging with APIs for each. Which type of messaging we use we decide, which implementation is pluggable. At its most basic, within a single VM an in-memory implementation would add no overhead, a JMS adapter around our existing persistence queueing mechanisms would add no additional overhead, a distributed implementation would add some overhead in return for its benefits. Using the JMS API enables a deployer to select the trade-offs appropiate to their deployment and plug-in the JMS implementation prevalent in their environment. I don't see any downsides with going the JMS route beyond a little rework. -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
