Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Steve Brewin wrote:
I think there is a lot of merit in coming up with a new queueing mechanism
Exactly. I really like the general direction of this proposal which is
to reuse queuing related patterns within James.
we should explain the benefits any proposed change is seeking to achieve.
Some benefits that I could think of:
+ clearer and more modularized approach
+ hopefully better plugability and managability for complexer configurations
Bernd
Concepts:
- Each processor is a named queue entry.
Our core architecture for the mailet pipeline would be message-based,
reusing well-established patterns from distributed queuing platforms, such
as MQ, JMS and others. The use of a named queue is basically what we have
today: each processor is named. I also assert that processor names are
locally scoped references, disassociated from real resources. So if we have
a distributed scenario, we may end up with something like:
<processor name="my-remote-processor" class="QAlias">
<queue class="JMSQueue">
<queuefactory>jms/myQF</queuefactory>
<queuename>jms/myQ</queuename>
<snip/>
So this is a bit more discussion of what I have in mind, and why.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
