On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/11 Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I think MINA is being tossed as we work to 0-10 in Java. Agree that the slow >>> connection >>> problem on private queues is un-related. >> >> This really can't wait to be fixed until we add new protocols to the >> Java broker. 0-10 makes things a lot easier, in many ways, but the >> basic problems remain the same and need to be fixed in similar ways. >> > > Once we have M4 out of the door I would like to discuss the work I've > done for both the broker and 0-8 client allowing them to select > alternative IO layers. For continuity stability it can use the > existing MINA IO, but to address some of the issues being brought up > here it can also be configured to use the Java 0-10 IO, or a similar > NIO/selector based transport I wrote. While this won't answer all > our issues it does offer one way of getting out from under some of the > issues we've seen with MINA... and experimentally showed much improved > performance for the Java Broker. The transport layer is only part of the picture, although it's a big part. Having pluggable ones would be awesome. Fancy attaching the patch to the Jira? :) - Aidan -- Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid "Nine-tenths of wisdom consists in being wise in time." - Theodore Roosevelt
