If there are folks using this in production, then why isn't this feature in its own module and not lumped together with all the other fluff in activemq-optional?
I have ~12 dependency excludes when depending on that module to keep out unwanted/unused stuff which is needed by other "optional" features provided by that module. :-( --jason On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:14 AM, Dejan Bosanac wrote: > Hi there are quite some folks that are using it in production, so it's > stable enough. > > The main reason to use this protocol is if you need to go through some > firewall and you can't let regular openwire traffic through it. It will > basically use XStream to marshal messages to XML and send them using http > to the broker. > > Hope this helps. > > Regards > -- > Dejan Bosanac - http://twitter.com/dejanb > ----------------- > The experts in open source integration and messaging - http://fusesource.com > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM, James Green <james.mk.gr...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> This is of interest to me too. >> >> Could use a description of it's behaviour which that page does not provide. >> >> James >> >> On 8 November 2011 01:45, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote: >> >>> ... is this any good? I keep getting folks in the backseat making >>> tunneling over HTTP a meta-requirement. Are there any significant issues >>> with using the http[s] transport in the activemq-optional module for >> this? >>> Will use of it totally kill performance? >>> >>> Documentation is a bit weak here, I've just found this: >>> >>> http://activemq.apache.org/http-and-https-transports-reference.html >>> >>> Which points to a bunch of other places which point out issues. I'm >>> unsure what is resolved and what is still pending. >>> >>> I'm going to play with it and run some tests, but I was curious if the >>> community has collected any intel on use of this transport already? >>> >>> --jason >>
