[jboss-user] [JBoss Messaging] - Re:

"timfox" wrote : The "right" way depends on what you are trying to do. | | From your test program I can see you are just sending messages to a queue, and consuming them via an MDB which does nothing but log a message. | | In this case you don't need transactions on your MDB, also there's no real JCA involved here, since you're just sending messages from a client - there's nothing to pool. | | Also you are currently using persistent messages, for the purposes of this example that's unnecessary too. Ah I see where you are coming from :-). My real application actually consists of two applications, the first accepts orders coming from http requests and the second processes the orders. Orders are transmitted from app1 to app2 over JMS. Both apps must persist the orders in their own databases. Earlier both the applications were simple web applications (war packaging), but when JMS was introduced in the mix, I switched to EAR because it seemed that MDBs/JCA/JTA is the "right" way to process JMS messages. This has obviously increased the complexity of the whole system and instead of focusing on the business functionality I am spending all my time on JMS. I will gladly move back to WAR if we can find a reasonable JMS approach without using MDBs. So that's what I am really trying to do (and I suspect that's what 90% of the people using JMS do anyway)! In short, I need to persist objects on both systems. Both systems need to be able to send JMS messages to each other (orders and confirmations) - I have two separate queues set up for this - one in each direction. I can't loose any orders or confirmations - so I guess the messages need to be persistent. The test program was just a simplification to figure out how the JMS piece should work. Hope this helps set up the context. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4244363#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...