9:15 a.m.
What exactly does this ESB Message Store do? This is what I wrote to
kurt in a private email:
"BTW, I still think you guys are reimplementing (in a half-ass way) what
JBoss Message and JBoss MQ have in a Message Store. If you want an FTP
message to be persisted, then:
1) Make the FTP inbound transactional so that it doesn't change the
status of the FTP file until tx commit
2) Post a persistent message to a JMS Queue.
3) Do 1 and 2 within a transaction.
I don't see anything wrong with using JMS under the covers. It
shouldn't be "heavyweight" intra-JVM."
Its fine if the ESB team's goal is to write JMS++, but it should be done
on top of a messaging solution like JBoss Messaging. I don't see the
added value to our users for the ESB team to writing similar
functionality to JBoss Messaging.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.
10:02 a.m.
Didn't we have this discussion back in March (http://www.jboss.com/
index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=104929)?
I spoke with Tim at the time and the message store they've got in JBM
is pretty basic and doesn't have much in the way of search
capabilities. Although what we've got is a store, it needs to be more
than that from our perspective. Ultimately we need to tie this into
SLAs, audit trails, complex search criteria etc. It's not just for
the reliable delivery of messages, which is what the JBM
implementation is there for.
There are two separate use cases for a "message store":
(i) Someone deploying the ESB and wanting reliable messaging may need
a store in order to guarantee delivery in the presence of failures.
That store should be optimised for the transport and probably comes
with the transport. In this case, the store with always store the
entire message, either permanently or for the duration of the delivery.
(ii) Someone deploying the ESB and wants to maintain audit trails for
all (or a select) messages. Messages stored here may need to be
searched in a variety of ways. Also, the entire message may not need
to be stored. It may be possible to just store the header
information. Or it may actually be illegal to store the entire
message (some contracts exist where only the sender and receiver can
ever have the entire message and intermediaries aren't allowed to do
so).
If we were only looking at (i), then JBM would be fine. However,
we're really looking at (ii). Whether we should use the current
Message Store to achieve (i) is a different discussion. My 2 cents is
that we shouldn't: these are really two different entities, even if
they have the same name.
Mark.
On 5 Jun 2007, at 15:15, Bill Burke wrote:
What exactly does this ESB Message Store do? This is what I wrote
to kurt in a private email:
"BTW, I still think you guys are reimplementing (in a half-ass way)
what JBoss Message and JBoss MQ have in a Message Store. If you
want an FTP message to be persisted, then:
1) Make the FTP inbound transactional so that it doesn't change the
status of the FTP file until tx commit
2) Post a persistent message to a JMS Queue.
3) Do 1 and 2 within a transaction.
I don't see anything wrong with using JMS under the covers. It
shouldn't be "heavyweight" intra-JVM."
Its fine if the ESB team's goal is to write JMS++, but it should be
done on top of a messaging solution like JBoss Messaging. I don't
see the added value to our users for the ESB team to writing
similar functionality to JBoss Messaging.
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.
_______________________________________________
esb-dev mailing list
esb-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/esb-dev
----
Mark Little
mlittle(a)redhat.com
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire,
SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David
Owens (Ireland)
10:19 a.m.
Mark Little wrote:
If we were only looking at (i), then JBM would be fine. However,
we're
really looking at (ii). Whether we should use the current Message Store
to achieve (i) is a different discussion. My 2 cents is that we
shouldn't: these are really two different entities, even if they have
the same name.
Great, but ESB doesn't need to build (i) because they need (ii). (ii)
seems more to me like a "message warehouse" and a niche use case. I
think the mass-market features and integration are far more important at
this stage of development.
Bill
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat Inc.
10:26 a.m.
I think as a result of the previous discussion we got the JCR message store?
Bill Burke wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
> If we were only looking at (i), then JBM would be fine. However,
> we're really looking at (ii). Whether we should use the current
> Message Store to achieve (i) is a different discussion. My 2 cents is
> that we shouldn't: these are really two different entities, even if
> they have the same name.
>
Great, but ESB doesn't need to build (i) because they need (ii). (ii)
seems more to me like a "message warehouse" and a niche use case. I
think the mass-market features and integration are far more important
at this stage of development.
Bill
10:38 a.m.
+1
On 5 Jun 2007, at 16:26, Kurt T Stam wrote:
I think as a result of the previous discussion we got the JCR
message store?
Bill Burke wrote:
>
>
> Mark Little wrote:
>> If we were only looking at (i), then JBM would be fine. However,
>> we're really looking at (ii). Whether we should use the current
>> Message Store to achieve (i) is a different discussion. My 2
>> cents is
>> that we shouldn't: these are really two different entities, even if
>> they have the same name.
>>
>
> Great, but ESB doesn't need to build (i) because they need (ii).
> (ii)
> seems more to me like a "message warehouse" and a niche use case. I
> think the mass-market features and integration are far more important
> at this stage of development.
>
> Bill
>
----
Mark Little
mlittle(a)redhat.com
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire,
SI4 1TE, United Kingdom.
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA) and David
Owens (Ireland)
12:50 p.m.
I would say that it is not a niche use case. If it is properly
implemented it will be used by 50% to 80% of all ESB users. Audit trail
is very, very important to this market.
Bill Burke wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
> If we were only looking at (i), then JBM would be fine. However,
> we're really looking at (ii). Whether we should use the current
> Message Store to achieve (i) is a different discussion. My 2 cents is
> that we shouldn't: these are really two different entities, even if
> they have the same name.
>
Great, but ESB doesn't need to build (i) because they need (ii). (ii)
seems more to me like a "message warehouse" and a niche use case. I
think the mass-market features and integration are far more important
at this stage of development.
Bill
6415
days inactive
6415
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bill Burke -
Burr Sutter -
Kurt T Stam -
Mark Little