Daniel, On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Robert Greig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/15 Daniel Cohen-Sason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Is there any document where I can understand the two approaches for QPID > > Java implmentation (JMS vs. Java)? > > Currently there is not, however this questions has come up a couple of > times so I will write a wiki page about it today. It is something of a > contentious issue however and there was a long debate about it on the > mailing list a while ago. > > > I really don't know which path to take. where can I have more details > about > > it? > > What follows is my own opinion, but your questions show that the > concerns I had were valid. > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong: If I adopt the JMS approach, I'll have > > richer api and more stable implemtation? > > You will certainly get a much more stable implementation - almost > certainly better performance too. The current M2.x codebase - > including the JMS client - has had over 18 months of real world > production usage. Actually the java JMS client on trunk is quite stable and the JMS Client/C++ broker can give the same (if not better) performance than the M2.1 java broker. The catch is that the C++ broker will only work on linux. (Currently there is an effort in porting it to trunk). The java broker on the other hand will run on any OS that has a JVM. The java broker has been in production for a while as well. Also the trunk is a moving target, and you don't have downloadable artifacts. So you need to build it from source. All the bug fixes done for the common code path in M2.1 JMS client is also in the trunk. If you have time and resources, please try the trunk JMS client with the C++ broker (trunk) and checkout the performance. Please let us know your experience with them and your feedback will be very much appreciated. Regards, Rajith
