Well, normally on different systems, but no reason it has to be;
You could have a single box with.
1) JRun
2) One or more CFMX Server instances
3) JMS server (JRun built-in or another)
A batch order entry CF app could send messages to a CF order processing
app via JMS.Both CF apps could be on
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:08:39 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could have a single box with.
1) JRun
2) One or more CFMX Server instances
3) JMS server (JRun built-in or another)
Yes, true, you could.
Being able to do this (decouple the data input from the data
processing)
If you want a quick tutorial on JMS (OpenJMS) there is one at:
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/20903/0/page/1
Dick
On Aug 15, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Dick Applebaum wrote:
Been playing with OpenJMS --- very nice package, pretty good docs,
simple install nice (if simple) examples.
It is easy to
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:47:16 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got me thinking that CFML should have the inherent ability to
send/receive JMS messages -- something like a cfmessage tag.
JMS is inherently asynchronous. CF is (currently) based on synchronous
HTTP request / response
How does JMS compare to the ability to call CFC methods asynchronously (one
of the mentioned new features in Blackstone)?
Sam
Blog http://www.rewindlife.com
TeamMM http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
-Original
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:28:36 -0400, Samuel R. Neff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does JMS compare to the ability to call CFC methods asynchronously (one
of the mentioned new features in Blackstone)?
They're unrelated really. JMS is just a mechanism for sending /
receiving data asynchronously
Sam
I don't know ...
But from what I have been able to learn about Blackstone it appears
that one way to call CFCs asynchronously is with JMS.
That is what Sean Corfield is doing, according to his blog posts here.
That is the very reason that I decided to learn about JMS -- so I would
be
On Aug 15, 2004, at 7:57 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:47:16 -0700, Dick Applebaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got me thinking that CFML should have the inherent ability to
send/receive JMS messages -- something like a cfmessage tag.
JMS is inherently asynchronous. CF is
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:14:56 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But from what I have been able to learn about Blackstone it appears
that one way to call CFCs asynchronously is with JMS.
JMS is not really a remote procedure call vehicle so it is not a way
to call CFCs asynchronously.
Sorry, I should have made my question clearer (or perhaps I should just wait
until Blackstone is released, but it seems a general question on features
already discussed public ally so here it goes).
What's the advantage of tapping into JMS as opposed to using async cfc calls
for a pure CF
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:22:01 -0700, Dick Applebaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I felt that cfmessage would be very useful as a jms receiver --
isolating the user from the complexity.
But, you are right, the typical CF app isn't written to sit and listen
for an asynchronous request,
Yeah, I
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:42:27 -0400, Samuel R. Neff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the advantage of tapping into JMS as opposed to using async cfc calls
for a pure CF application?
If you have a pure CF app, JMS is irrelevant. JMS is useful for
passing data asynchronously between applications on
ok, that's the key information I wasn't clear on.. different systems.. :-)
Thanks!
Sam
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OpenJMS was JMS provider in anticipation of Blackstone
On Mon,
On Aug 15, 2004, at 9:46 PM, Sean Corfield wrote:
You could (possible) simplify this interface (for the rest of us)
with
a cfmessage type=receiver... tag.
No you can't. You'd need a request in progress to execute that tag -
the whole point of the event gateway is that it can generate the
14 matches
Mail list logo
