Lars and others,
So I spent a little time over the past few days evaluating MULE, and
the short story is that it is a beast (pun intended). Its strong
point appears to be transport independence, where your application
logic can be blissfully ignorant as to whether the message it received
came in over JMS, SMTP or carrier pigeon.
The downside of that is that it appears to be a little bit heavyweight
for us. For example, I did a little bit of latency testing and found
that it added anywhere from 10 to 100 milliseconds over ActiveMQ alone
(I was using ActiveMQ as the underlying transport) for a round trip
over the network. I think that is probably overhead we want to avoid.
The solution that is starting to look more attractive is the use of
ActiveMQ internally in our application, using the "vm transport" that
does no marshaling, but rather uses direct method invocation. More
here:
http://goopen.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/VM+Transport+ReferenceI'll probably first try to port our app using explicit queue
management, but there is an abstraction built in, called "message
driven POJOs", which as far as I can tell are the equivalent of
JCyclone stages. This example is a little out of date but gives some
idea of how it will work:
http://blog.interface21.com/main/2006/08/11/message-driven-pojos/In any case, I'll post a writeup once I have it all figured out.
graham
On 10/12/06, Graham Miller <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Lars,
>
> We have been using JCyclone for a fairly long time. I think the original
> reasons were based on a perception of simplicity, and the fact that it was
> self-contained. However we are evaluating the possibility of porting our
> apps to Mule in the near future, it's really just a matter of development
> resources. Certainly Mule appears to have more in the ways of bells and
> whistles (all nicely packaged in their own plug-in). I would be interested
> in your thoughts on the Mule in-VM transport versus JCyclone--because that
> looks to be more of an apples-to-apples comparison.
>
> graham
>
>
>
>
> On 10/12/06, Lars <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > What benefits do you see in using JCyclone as your core. The SEDA
> > principles are really nice, but the JCyclone seems like a really stale
> > project, have you got any feeling for the quality and stability of it.
> >
> > Have you ever evaluated Mule as an alternative.
> >
> > Regards
> > Lars
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/JCyclone-usage-tf2428509.html#a6771132> > Sent from the m-etc-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > m-etc-dev mailing list
> >
[hidden email]
> >
>
http://lists.marketcetera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m-etc-dev> >
>
>
>
> --
> Marketcetera Trading Platform
> download.run.trade.
> www.marketcetera.org
--
Marketcetera Trading Platform
download.run.trade.
www.marketcetera.org
_______________________________________________
m-etc-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.marketcetera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m-etc-dev
