On 7/27/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/27/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/27/06, Paul French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks James, Judging from the mailing lists you are a very busy man!!
> >
> > I think you misunderstood my question?
> >
> > Does Jencks pool sessions OR connections when using JMS?
>
> It pools both
>
>
> > Using Spring SingleConnectionFactory we reuse the same connection.
> However
> > Spring will create a new session and consumer/producer on the fly when
> using
> > the JmsTemplate. Hence my question:
> >
> >
> > Is a new session object fairly lightweight? (from the point of view of
> > creating it)
>
> Not in term of latency as it requires a blocking request-response with
> a broker. Ditto when creating/closing producers/consumers.
Actually, creating/closing a session and producer uses async one way
messages. So, latencey should not be an issue unless you are bandwith
constrained.
But creating/closing consumers does use a blocking RPC.
Thanks for the correction - you're right - DOH. I always thought there
were all sync - didn't realise how clever ActiveMQ was :)
I kinda thought creating a producer might have to check security on
the broker too? (I guess we can always do that check on the send()
call).
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
