On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Hugues Jerome wrote: >Heinrich G�tzger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >> >Heinrich G�tzger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> > >> >> what's your goal? >> > >> >write a survey on mom architecture for a student work :) >> Hey, that sounds interesting! I'm corious about your results. > >a part will be devoted to the description of the numerous architectures >available for both the client and the server side, some are using agents >(joram), peer to peer (openjms), some provide qos, filtering (open jms) some >provide several protocols, interresting call back mechanism (XmlBlaster) ... >this list is not limitative and may include other features ...
It get's even more interesting to think about an overview having all (or at least a lot of free or commercial) mom compared to each other in a number of disciplins like architectures or features. > >the result is obvious : every mom is unique. >I just want to provide the reader with an overview of the existing solutions, >architectures If it is possible I'd like to get a copy of your work. >> If you connect multiple server-proccesses to this mom (i.e. xmlBlaster) >> they could exchange messages using the mom philosophies like >> publish/subscribe or probably better point-to-point. >> >> >From this point of view xmlBlaster might be a very good provider for a >> smart interserver communication. > >[snip] > >> This however is already possible and no development on xmlBlaster-side >> would be neccessary. > >Yep, I ve understood the philosophy of XmlBlaster that way. > >> But after all I'm not sure, if we talk about the same. > >What I was speaking is the possiblity to run several instances of XmlBlaster, >one per physical node, so that the load is distributed. Since the documentation >speaks only of 'the xmlblaster' or 'the engine', it was not clear for me if >it was possible Ok, I understood you right at the first view. You said it already: clustering. This however, as I pointed out earlier, is not possible in a straightforward way or an out-of-the-box-solution yet. One might indeed find a way to bind two xmlBlaster together running on two different physical nodes. I can not exclude this :-) > >> Hope it helps > >Of course it does ! Thanks for these valuable information You're very welcome. regards Heinrich -- http://www.xmlBlaster.org
