ActiveMQ

[Dirk Koopman]

On 26/05/11 01:26, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:55, Ruud H.G. van Tol<rvtol at isolution.nl>  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.

But then *anyone* could do it. Where's the payoff in that then?