On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx@qmx.me> wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:28:47PM -0400, Jay Balunas wrote:That's exactly why I was unhappy with this change =/
> One question that came up around the JMS stuff is how will it work on
> top of plain old Tomcat? Will we be including the extra libs for that
> case? Or perhaps that functionality is only available if JMS is part
> of the container?
fair point, right now JMS is not used for much.Once a request hits the server (e.g. request against our HTTP sender API), we produce a JMS message and send a "JOB Submitted" 200 HTTP request.The consumer for the JMS message does all the work that _may_ take longer, and is blocking IO (->JPA).E.g. it looks up the MobileVariantInances and is responsible for delivering the messages to the actual push networks (GCM/APNs).I think, that we can remove the JMS part, at least for now. (e.g. for the early August release). However, I am sure, that at some point messaging will helpful for scaling/throughput.For now, we could use CDI events in combination with the @Asynchronous EJB annotation (for publishing and receiving).Maybe I'm totally wrong but using EJB on a plain old Tomcat/Jetty will be the same issue as using JMS, no ? (Or by Tomcat when meant TomEE ? )
would that be OK ?-M
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev