The nice thing about SEDA is that it is built in Camel so you don't need any extra dependencies.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Mark Nuttall [via Camel] < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. > > Yeah, it will just be simple pub/sub, no topics or message expiration. So, > I think I will switch to SEDA. > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Quinn Stevenson < > [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5796700&i=0>> > wrote: > > > IMO, if you need features that ActiveMQ provides (publish/subscribe > > semantics (JMS Topics), message expiration, Virtual Topics) then an > > Embedded ActiveMQ broker makes sense. If SEDA does what you need, I > think > > I’d stick with that. > > > > > On Mar 29, 2017, at 6:23 AM, Mark Nuttall <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5796700&i=1>> wrote: > > > > > > Note that i will be using **embedded** ActiveMQ. (I tried to highlight > > that > > > in my question) Thus it will _not_ have persistence, reliability or be > > > distributed. > > > > > > So, in light that, does embedded ActiveMQ add any value over SEDA? Or > > does > > > it just add overhead (i.e. more memory, etc)? > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Muhzin <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5796700&i=2>> wrote: > > > > > >> The documentation of SEDA has the necessary clarification. > > >> > > >> > > >> The *seda:* component provides asynchronous SEDA > > >>> <http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/proj/seda/> behavior, so that > > messages > > >>> are exchanged on a BlockingQueue > > >>> <http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/ > > >> concurrent/BlockingQueue.html> and > > >>> consumers are invoked in a separate thread from the producer. > > >>> This component does not implement any kind of persistence or > recovery, > > if > > >>> the VM terminates while messages are yet to be processed. *If you > need > > >>> persistence, reliability or distributed SEDA, try using either JMS > > >>> <http://camel.apache.org/jms.html> or ActiveMQ > > >>> <http://camel.apache.org/activemq.html>.* > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Mark Nuttall <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5796700&i=3>> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Which would be the better choice? SEDA or _embedded_ ActiveMQ? > > >>> > > >>> I've googled and read the docs. I am just doing some low volume, > short > > >>> live processing and need async worker queues. My only other choice > is > > SQS > > >>> and it seems like overkill and a lot of extra effort. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> BR > > >> Muhsin > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/SEDA-vs-embedded-ActiveMQ- > tp5796692p5796700.html > To start a new topic under Camel - Users, email > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from Camel - Users, click here > <http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=465428&code=c291Y2lhbmNlLmVxZGFtLnJhc2h0aUBnbWFpbC5jb218NDY1NDI4fDE1MzI5MTE2NTY=> > . > NAML > <http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> > -- View this message in context: http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/SEDA-vs-embedded-ActiveMQ-tp5796692p5796701.html Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
