Guillaume Nodet's blog

Dan Diephouse just blogged about the announcement of a public review of a JMS SOAP binding and IRI scheme from BEA, IBM, Sonic and Tibco. This is a great news for JMS/SOAP interoperability ! He mentioned that the content-type header has a limited value because of the lack of support for very large messages in JMS. While this may be true for some providers, ActiveMQ provides such a feature . Also, I'd like to mention I would have been very happy to have a JMS Binding for non-SOAP WSDLs, like the WSDL2 HTTP Binding. I think it would be even more useful ! Anyway, hopefully ServiceMix will have support for the spec soon ...

Jencks 2.0 has been released. This is a major release because there are lots of incompatibilities, but the main point has been to upgrade to Geronimo 1.2 Transaction Manager, which leads to a much simpler configuration. The release also includes the ActiveMQ Pool from my previous blog entry.

Over the past weeks, I spend some times load testing ServiceMix and ActiveMQ . I discovered two things: * ActiveMQ broker is currently single threaded for a given JMS connection. The main effect is that if you send messages from several threads on the same connection, all threads will be processing sequentially (well, not exactly, but they will all be processed by a single thread on the broker side). * ActiveMQ Resource Adapter does not pool sessions and producers: this means that sending a single message with Jencks using the JMS best practices in a J2EE environment (create a connection, create a session, create a producer, send, close all) will take three consecutive roundtrips to the JMS broker and is very CPU intensive for the broker (at least, when using JMX). The first problem is mainly apparent when using persistent messages and there are a few things than can be used to speed up things (see the LogicBlaze tuning guide for ActiveMQ). However these tuning tweaks are no...