It is also the only correct way to write asynch functions in a j2ee
applications since threads are not allowed.
Right?
Johan
- Original Message -
From: "John Hogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Orion-Interest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001
rest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Orion-Interest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: JMS or just function ??
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:40:35 +0200
>
>In general you use JMS for three purposes:
>1. The message receiver is not always accessible (due for instance to the
>unrel
In general you use JMS for three purposes:
1. The message receiver is not always accessible (due for instance to the
unreliable nature of the internet) but you do want guaranteed delivery.
2. You would like to give clients the option to subscribe at will
(allthough you probably can do this using
A benefit is that your app can send messages and can forget about
them. It doesn't need to wait for anything to complete. This means
you don't have to keep your user waiting, who may be on the other end
of something like an http request. Users don't like to wait. It's
not appropriate for e
Eddie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Hope to get an answer on this question:
> Can someone please tell me when/why to use JMS ? and what his impact is on
>performance to comparision to for example a function-call of another bean and
>application ??
>
> I like to use it but the above is still a bit
