On 23 November 2011 14:02, KingAndrew <andrew.b...@bbtech.net> wrote: > Thanks for the input. The whole question comes from my clients that have > used corba/rmi for 15 years. Now that we are switching to > Camel/ActiveMQ/JMS they all say: > "It might scale better but I don't see how it can be as fast as Corba/RMI"
Making an RPC with any technology requires the client send a message over a socket then wait for the server side to context switch, read it, respond, send the response, the client then receive it and process it. With asynchronous messaging you can fire and forget the message; so its very fast; no sat around waiting for the server. YMMV though, depends on what you're trying to do. Other benefits of messaging over Corba/RMI are location transparency (no need to know the exact ID/host/port of the server), load balancing and automatic failover (if a consumer fails to process a message its replayed to another consumer automatically), and loose coupling over time as well as location; the server could be down when you send your message; the server will catch up and process the messages when it gets back. -- James ------- FuseSource Email: ja...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration and Messaging
