. juin 2003 21:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
As Bela and I have recently discussed with Tom Elrod, we all
think that
exposing JavaGroups as a transport of the remoting framework
is indeed the best
approach. However, I struggle with how
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery / message throttling clustering / failover
since Nathan's design is based on JavaGroups, these issues are
JavaGroups issues:
- Message retransmission is handled by JavaGroups.
- Failover: what do you understand by failover ?
- Throttling: we are working on a
Ulf,
Our primary goal with JMS reloaded is to address the items you highlighted.
Adrian and I had a very interesting discussion about number one, and Bill and I
discussed clustering a bit in SF last week. So we are certainly focused on
number 1 and 2. Number 3 is less of a concern to me
from getting a first iteration
in place.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bela
Ban
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery
Bill Burke wrote:
Nathan's design will not be based on JavaGroups, but will rather use
JavaGroups as one type of transport mechanism.
Don't get all nervous; that's what I meant. 2 transports, one is the
traditional c/s, the other one is implemented using JavaGroups.
I would rather see JBoss
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bela
Ban
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 2:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Bill Burke wrote:
Nathan's design will not be based on JavaGroups, but will rather use
JavaGroups as one type
1:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Antwort: RE: [JBoss-dev] JBossMQ rewrite
Hi Ulf,
(2) message redelivery / message throttling clustering / failover
since Nathan's design is based on JavaGroups, these issues are
JavaGroups issues:
- Message retransmission
