Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #20862
| From | "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: JMS vs Sockets -- bandwidth, size, speed, etc. |
| Date | 2013-01-01 18:18 -0500 |
| Organization | The Wasteland |
| Message-ID | <nospam-90C8F5.18180901012013@news.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <c3WCs.31155$tG.11699@newsfe15.iad> <50dd5f6e$0$80158$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <GnBDs.14805$fh5.5701@newsfe26.iad> <50df9972$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <1kl5inng2f2tm$.gwhu8koirxs4$.dlg@40tude.net> |
In article <1kl5inng2f2tm$.gwhu8koirxs4$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:31:21 -0500, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> > On 12/29/2012 7:30 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> >> On 12/28/2012 04:59 AM, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> >>> 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. FFMQ is
> >>> a lightweight codebase but it's still going to hit disk
> >>> I/O fairly hard. 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.
> >> What I was getting at is, if you're going to use the terms
> >> "lightweight" and "heavyweight" at all - and I eschew both
> >> because they are too confusing for people from different
> >> communities
> > Those two terms are two of the most misused terms in the
> > Java world and they can mean very different things:
>
> > hw lw
>
> > big as in many classes small as in few classes
> > big overhead ratio low overhead ratio
> > very intrusive in code not intrusive in code
> > use many resources use few resources
AWT Component w/peer Swing JComponent
>
> > so there are better terms to explain what we mean.
>
> You forgot about the Swing definition of heavyweight and
> lightweight components - something to do with transparency, I
> believe, but I'm not a Swing person.
Good point; not transparency so much as association with a
native screen resource:
<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/java/mixing-components-433992.html>
--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
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