Are there operational disadvantages to using HTTP transport? I am thinking in terms of things like acknowledgements - behavioural changes like Stomp vs Openwire.
James On 8 November 2011 10:14, Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> 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 > > >
