Note that i will be using **embedded** ActiveMQ. (I tried to highlight that in my question) Thus it will _not_ have persistence, reliability or be distributed.
So, in light that, does embedded ActiveMQ add any value over SEDA? Or does it just add overhead (i.e. more memory, etc)? On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Muhzin <rmuh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The documentation of SEDA has the necessary clarification. > > > The *seda:* component provides asynchronous SEDA > > <http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/> behavior, so that messages > > are exchanged on a BlockingQueue > > <http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/ > concurrent/BlockingQueue.html> and > > consumers are invoked in a separate thread from the producer. > > This component does not implement any kind of persistence or recovery, if > > the VM terminates while messages are yet to be processed. *If you need > > persistence, reliability or distributed SEDA, try using either JMS > > <http://camel.apache.org/jms.html> or ActiveMQ > > <http://camel.apache.org/activemq.html>.* > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Mark Nuttall <mknutt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Which would be the better choice? SEDA or _embedded_ ActiveMQ? > > > > I've googled and read the docs. I am just doing some low volume, short > > live processing and need async worker queues. My only other choice is SQS > > and it seems like overkill and a lot of extra effort. > > > > > > -- > BR > Muhsin >
