Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7

From: "Clebert Suconic" <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt;, &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:17:15 PM Subject: Re: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 Well... Topic subscriptions are just Queues. There are advantages of using the HornetQ API directly... Especially on Asynchronous ACKs. Although I don't understand exactly why you need a separate module on AS7 for this. This is just a simple POJO being accessed through the classloader. (hornetq-core.jar, and hornetq-core-client.jar)

On Apr 6, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Andrig Miller wrote: > Personal take on this, is that there shouldn't be two. The > astonishment below about only have queue's and not topics is a > direct result of this separation, because the implementation details > underneath JMS, in terms of HornetQ, is that there are only queues, > even though topics are fully support, but its still just a queue > underneath. > > This is a problem in my mind. > > Andy > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Brian Stansberry" <brian.stansberry(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: &quot;jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org Development" >> <jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt;, "Clebert Suconic" >> <csuconic(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:15:04 PM >> Subject: [jboss-as7-dev] HornetQ subsystems in AS 7 >> Copied below is a discussion we had today on #jboss-as7 in IRC that >> I'm >> copying here to get input from the HQ folks. >> >> AS 7 currently has 2 HQ-related subsystems, "messaging" which >> provides >> core HQ, and "jms" which brings in JMS spec compliance. The gist of >> the >> discussion is 1) whether this separation is overly unintuitive and >> 2) >> if >> it's necessary, is the name "messaging" for the core HQ subsystem >> too >> likely to lead users to assume it's where JMS topic/queue creation >> is >> done. >> >> The conversation is below. It carried on after the following; >> please >> see >> http://echelog.matzon.dk/logs/browse/jboss-as7/1302040800 if you >> are >> interested. >> >> pilhuhn: Also I am astonished that Q s are present , but not Topics >> [1:52pm] bstansberry: pilhuhn: there are topics in the jms >> subsystem >> [1:53pm] bstansberry: the "messaging" subsystem is very oriented >> toward >> core HornetQ >> [1:54pm] bstansberry: Nihility: ^^^ reminds me of our discussion w/ >> paul >> re: the JGroups subsystem, where we decided it was silly to give a >> "generic" name to a subsystem that was not exposing a standard API >> [1:55pm] bstansberry: same applies to subsystem=messaging >> [1:55pm] pilhuhn: so Qs are in both? messaging and jms? feels >> strange >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: makes sense >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: sort of >> [1:55pm] Nihility: bstansberry: another example is subsystem=web >> [1:56pm] Nihility: bstansberry: which is jboss web >> [1:56pm] bstansberry: well, that at least is exposing the Servlet >> spec >> [1:56pm] dmlloyd: shared global bindings are a nasty little problem >> [1:56pm] Nihility: i think our goal should just be to have >> subsystem >> names >> [1:56pm] Nihility: that are intuitive easy to understand >> [1:57pm] Nihility: jgroups vs group-communication is basically the >> same >> to me >> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: jgroups is unambiguous and concise imo >> [1:57pm] bstansberry: yes, that's decided >> [1:57pm] Nihility: yes >> [1:57pm] dmlloyd: hornetq should be hornetq >> [1:57pm] Nihility: the reason for messaging and jms is different >> [1:57pm] pilhuhn: I think it needs to be clear that for an enduse, >> that >> he wants to have a jms/queue and not a messaging/queue when doing >> jms >> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: jms should be jms >> [1:58pm] Nihility: they realy do have two subsystems >> [1:58pm] dmlloyd: if there is such a generic notion >> [1:58pm] bstansberry: right, so calling hornetq "messaging" is not >> intuitive >> [1:58pm] Nihility: they have this notion of a lightweight topic >> [1:58pm] bstansberry: people will gravitate toward it >> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: Yeah leightweight.. it will float in the clouds >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and thats what they think is a real messaging >> api >> [1:59pm] pilhuhn: .oO( DId I win as BS-Bingo? ) >> [1:59pm] Nihility: jms is just something extra they do for the spec >> [1:59pm] Nihility: with extra requirements etc >> [1:59pm] Nihility: so its like a higher level layer >> [1:59pm] Nihility: so they have core messaging >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and they have jms >> [1:59pm] Nihility: and togheter thats hornetq >> [1:59pm] bstansberry: good point >> [2:00pm] bstansberry: ok, no JIRA, at least not from me >> [2:01pm] bstansberry: instead, a dev list thread and the HQ people >> can >> deal with it >> [2:01pm] pilhuhn: The admin that wants to use a MessageDrivenBean >> does >> not really care about that separation >> [2:02pm] Nihility: the separation is more because you can run hq >> without >> starting the jms services >> [2:02pm] Nihility: and they have separate configuration >> [2:02pm] pilhuhn: yep >> [2:02pm] Nihility: although you could collapse the two >> [2:02pm] Nihility: emuckenhuber and i debated that for awhile >> [2:02pm] Nihility: we had a hard time deciding >> [2:03pm] pilhuhn: What I want to express (and that targets rather >> us >> with JON and the console) is that for this said admin it needs to >> be >> totally clear that he wants to go to subsys/jms/queue >> >> -- >> Brian Stansberry >> Principal Software Engineer >> JBoss by Red Hat >> _______________________________________________ >> jboss-as7-dev mailing list >> jboss-as7-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev