Sure. That makes sense. In fact, I'm working on a product/solution where I'll be using messaging and databases in a transactional way and it's imperative that the performance of messaging (with persistent messages, durable subscribers and transactions) is faster than the database operations. I'm in the process of performance testing a prototype of the solution and I'll be using QPID M2 and Berkeley DB for now and will see how the performance looks.
I don't have experience of HOWL but have worked with low-level transaction code in the past (implementing an EJB container). I guess there's no reason why I couldn't just have a go at creating an implementation of the MessageStore interface - that would at least be a fast way to familiarise myself with the work involved and see if it makes sense for me to contribute towards this. Thanks, Andy. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 November 2007 10:36 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: QPID M2 and Berkley DB On 04/11/2007, Andy Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Robert. I have this building now. Great. > I would be interested in contributing to an Apache friendly message store if > help is needed. I'm still getting up to speed with AMQP but have extensive > database and JDBC experience. Do you have any experience with HOWL? That would be an interesting one to create for comparison with BDB. One reason why a JDBC (i.e. relational database backed) store has not really been progressed is because basically it will perform like a 3-legged giraffe. A persistent message store doesn't really require a relational database - given the nature of the problem being solved a much simpler high performance logger is all that is required. RG
