> I'd rather explore JMX, I've been looking at JBOSS 4 and its JMX
> architecture seems to describe what I'd like to see James have.
JMX and JMS don't serve the same purposes. JMS *might* (and I stress that
it is only a possibility, and not one that I'm overly convinced about)
provide a spool implementation.
> I'm certainly not convinced that JMS is really the best approach. It would
> be sadly ironic if we end up with James performance suffering because of
> JMS queue issues.
> OTOH if it works I'm for it. :-)
That is my position, as well. Considering that I used to write real-time
embedded kernels for a living (albiet a couple of decades ago), performance
is never far from my mind. Personally, I think that JMS is overkill, but it
has been recommended that we look at it, so I'm asking the geronimo team
what the status is so that we can evaluate. I've other alternatives in
mind, as well.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
