> > One of my notes points to a JMS (ActiveMQ) based spoolmanager. > > Now that we added derby it would be also easier (ActiveMQ > default db > > is Derby, too). > > > > I'm not sure how much work is needed for JMS compared to > the patch to > > make the current spoolmanager single threaded. > > > > If feasible/"easy enough" do we like more the JMS solution? > Just curious: isn't JMS an overkill just to solve a threading problem?
JMS itself isn't heavyweight: activemq is really lightweight. If we adopt JMS we get remote spool monitoring/handling for free. We get better enterprise integration for free. We get interchangeable spooling infrastructure. We also get JMS distributability and "free" clustering support. And we remove some of the avalon dependency. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
