On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 09:48 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > I would also add to the list JMS (ActiveMQ) spoolmanager implementation: > this would be a cool project and a big testbed for major changes in James 3.
I too would like to see this. I think moving all the spooling over to JMS would be a huge plus. It would solve the clustering problem as the issue would move over to the JMS provider (and ActiveMQ has a number of solutions for clustering.) It would add flexibility to James in that users could use whatever JMS implementation they want. The biggest issue I see with moving to a pure JMS based spooling system is coping with failed message sends. AFAIK, you can't schedule a JMS message to be sent after a specified delay. Perhaps Quartz could handle this? Noel keeps bring up the concern that JMS would be too slow but I'm not convinced this is a issue. My own tests have shown that ActiveMQ is pretty fast and has a number of options for tuning performance. I can't see how JAMES' spool using a JDBC back-end would be faster than ActiveMQ. Of course, I could be way off base. This is just my opinion. -Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
