ActiveMQ

[Daniel Pittman]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:55, Ruud H.G. van Tol <rvtol at isolution.nl> wrote:
> On 2011-05-25 19:33, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:10, Ruud H.G. van Tol<rvtol at isolution.nl> wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-25 09:19, James Laver wrote:
>>>> On 24 May 2011, at 06:31, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>
>>> Anyone here who used Spread recently?

[…]
>> If I had to pick a "does as little as possible" low level library, 0mq
>> looks like the best available choice, but it provides next to
>> *nothing* in terms of scaling; you have a toolkit for messaging and
>> get to build out the rest of the routing, scaling, persistence, etc
>> yourself.
>
> Interesting indeed. For example the multicast-at-a-distance.
> http://www.zeromq.org/area:whitepapers

*nod*  There is also solid technical evidence (eg: Google) that their
"broker as naming service" model works solidly, and good technical
solutions (eg: DNS dynamic update, LDAP) that allow for naming with
availability, but without the need to build solid infrastructure
around it.

The real challenge is that no one seems, yet, to have solved this in a
single place and documented it.  I love building new systems, but I
always worry about them: plenty of places to mess the heck up and get
it all wrong.  Mostly in ways that only show up under serious load;
any solution works at small scale.

Daniel
-- 
⎋ Puppet Labs Developer – http://puppetlabs.com
✉ Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net>
✆ Contact me via gtalk, email, or phone: +1 (503) 893-2285
♲ Made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons