Comments on: Choosing a JMS Provider: Harder than it should be

By: don

don — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:43:30 +0000

Thanks for all the suggestions and info from the comments. As was noted in an earlier post, this evaluation (at the clients request) is currently limited to conventional commercial vendors, but ultimately may not be (they make heavy use of jBoss and MySql, for example, so they are no strangers to OpenSource in the enterprise.) It will likely be a week or two before the dust settles, but I will update this post with ultimate results of the survey.

By: Mike Richardson

Mike Richardson — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:19:01 +0000

Mark,

Thanks for the suggestions. I am doing some testing right now with ActiveMQ and I have to say it is pretty nice. Now its time to put a .NET wrapper around this sucker! :-)

- Mike

By: Mark Nickel

Mark Nickel — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:07:23 +0000

There is support for REST, but you should probably check out this posting in the forums before getting too excited:

http://forums.activemq.org/posts/list/143.page

IMO, the REST support in ActiveMQ is really in place so that you could implement a new client in a non-Java language. From my experimentation, using the REST interface is fairly complex… But that’s definitely not the fault of ActiveMQ. :)

For easier scripting you are probably going to want to play with STOMP or the AJAX as these build on the REST and hide the complexities of how REST is implemented within ActiveMQ.

I think it’s great to have these simpler clients that hide the majority of the gritty details of a JMS client. Most implementations really just need to send and receive messages… The infrastructure should take care of the details… If you really need the low level stuff for nailing that last few percentage points of performance, you can do it because the details are still available.

By: Mike Richardson

Mike Richardson — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:39:00 +0000

Bruce,

Interesting point – I am definitely interested and am going to download it now to run some basic performance tests. I am also very interested in its support of the REST protocol, which could make for some interesting messaging scenarios.

By: Bruce Snyder

Bruce Snyder — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:40:01 +0000

ActiveMQ 4.0 supports all of your requirements and more, without any license costs because it is Apache Licensed open source. Services and support can be purchased from LogicBlaze (http://www.logicblaze.com/). In addition, ActiveMQ outperforms nearly all other JMS implementations, most by a large margin – see the performance report here:

http://logicblaze.com/AMQ_data_sheet.pdf

By: Mike Richardson

Mike Richardson — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:10:20 +0000

To everyone that is reading this post/and comments: if you have experience using queuing vendors for .NET messaging applications other than MSMQ, please give me some information on your experiences with other vendors. MQ Series is a wonderful product, but there .NET API is terrible. As a matter of fact, just to implement transactions requires the use of COM+ interop (not good). Sonic suffers from the same issue. I am currently testing the .NET API with Tibco Rendevous and it looks pretty useful so far. As soon as I am done my functional and performance testing, I will be posting my results.

By: Damien

Damien — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:42:39 +0000

Oops, I missed the part where you said commercial. If by that you mean; pay for software license and professional services, as opposed to open source software and pay for professional services…. Well, then good luck with that.

By: Damien

Damien — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:39:27 +0000

I highly recommend JORAM –> http://joram.objectweb.org/

By: ks

ks — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:34:56 +0000

Did you try TIBCO EMS? http://www.tibco.com/software/enterprise_backbone/enterprisemessageservice.jsp