anonymous wrote : What do you mean by "much lower performance"?
This is inherent in the protocol, it will never perform as well as plain TCP.
Also typically this means that clients are talking to servers over a slower
network, i.e. the internet.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/
What do you mean by "much lower performance"? Do you have any numbers? Why is
http transport not stable?
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4160932#4160932
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=416
Bear in mind, that you'll get much lower performance if you use the HTTP
transport, and we don't recommend it if you want stability.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4160817#4160817
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&o
Hi Ebe,
The bisocket transport needs the second port to support clients behind
firewalls, which, as you mention, is the reason the bisocket transport was
developed. However, if you're not going to use the bisocket transport, you can
just remove the bisocket configuration and it won't run at al
