Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20774
| From | Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. |
| References | <94fcfac6-eff5-4e84-956a-8a7970867867@googlegroups.com> <50dbfa57$0$80114$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <c3WCs.31155$tG.11699@newsfe15.iad> <50dd5f6e$0$80158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <50ddc1ef$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| Date | 2012-12-28 12:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50ddfec3$0$80124$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> (permalink) |
| Organization | Sonic.Net |
In article <50ddc1ef$0$281$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote: > On 12/28/2012 3:59 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > > In article <c3WCs.31155$tG.11699@newsfe15.iad>, > > Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> wrote: > >> On 12/27/2012 03:35 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote: > >>> JMS services are typically very heavy weight. Memory and disk space are > >>> needed to buffer data to nodes that temporarily fall behind or go > >>> offline. Configuration can take a while too. > >>> > >> It's funny how people can come at things from a different perspective. > >> In my world messaging providers like JMS providers or WMQ (and JMS and > >> MQ clients) are _lightweight_. I actually stopped and tried to process > >> your "novel" concept for a few seconds. :-) > > > > They're almost lightweight without the high reliability options, but > > those are the same options that cause people to choose JMS rather than > > an in-house solution. > > That may be how you use message queue solutions. > > But there are other that use message queues without the > reliability options. > > > ActiveMQ is a resource-consuming > > beast when faced with reliable delivery to clients that are lagging. > > ActiveMQ also has dependencies on half the Internet so it's prone to > > creating library conflicts. > > ???? > > How? > > The ActiveMQ jars and the applications jars should not be > mixed at all. Either different JVM or different apps within the > same app server. Only exception I can think of is embedded > inside an SE app, which is not a common scenario. > > Arne I agree about how it should work but there is no minimal ActiveMQ client. The best you can do is a trial-and-error process to create exclusion lists in Ivy/Maven rather than pulling down the full client JAR. -- I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-26 13:26 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-26 13:35 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-26 19:00 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. mcheung63@gmail.com - 2012-12-26 20:46 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-26 20:53 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-12-27 14:45 +0100
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:26 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2013-01-08 09:28 +0000
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-08 19:54 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-12-27 14:26 +0100
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:18 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-12-27 19:47 +0100
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 14:09 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-26 23:35 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-27 07:13 -0400
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:25 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-28 00:59 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 10:59 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2012-12-28 12:19 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 23:46 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 23:49 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-29 08:30 -0400
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-29 20:31 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-01-01 23:25 +0100
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-01 18:18 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-27 13:22 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-28 07:25 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-28 10:50 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-28 08:44 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-12-29 20:52 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-12-28 13:24 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-12-29 08:48 -0400
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. me 2 <winona_whitener@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-07 13:01 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2013-01-07 13:09 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-07 20:02 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-01-07 18:42 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-07 22:07 -0500
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-01-08 00:00 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-01-11 01:07 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-01-11 11:04 -0800
Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-01-11 20:09 -0500
csiph-web