Re: New security code in scratchpad (no CORBA needed from Xindice to xmlBlaster)

[Heinrich Götzger <go...@gmx.net>]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Mark J. Stang wrote:

[...]
>With the old version of Xindice, I had to have a seperate
>Xindice process running.  So, I had a JMS Server, a
>Cybershop Server and Xindice Server all running.
>To make things more interesting, I used JBoss for my
>JMS server, a little overkill :-).   By using the
>embedded version I can eliminate one process.   With
>the elimination of the whole CORBA thing, I might be
>able to use XmlBlaster.

You might be able to use it in these days as well.
xmlBlaster supports some SOCKET transport layer instead of CORBA. It might
even be faster.

It seems that there is no other way around than this to avoid singleton
CORBA conflicts discussed here a year ago.
[...]

cheers

Heinrich

Re: New security code in scratchpad (no CORBA needed from Xindiceto xmlBlaster)

["Mark J. Stang" <ma...@earthlink.net>]

Heinrich,
With the embedded version of the server, Xindice is no
longer an issue.  My issue now is that I have everything
designed to work with JMS.   However, I am in the
process of abstracting my Publish/Subscribe Interface to
make it transport independent.   At that time, I should be
able to "drop in" any version of JMS, XmlBlaster or
None.   The "None" version uses an internal
Publish/Subscribe without having to go over the wire.

Once, I can swap out my transport layer, then I will
be interested in seeing how fast/reliable XmlBlaster
is compared to some of the JMS implementations.
I have high hopes for XmlBlaster :-).

regards,

Mark

Heinrich Götzger wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Mark J. Stang wrote:
>
> [...]
> >With the old version of Xindice, I had to have a seperate
> >Xindice process running.  So, I had a JMS Server, a
> >Cybershop Server and Xindice Server all running.
> >To make things more interesting, I used JBoss for my
> >JMS server, a little overkill :-).   By using the
> >embedded version I can eliminate one process.   With
> >the elimination of the whole CORBA thing, I might be
> >able to use XmlBlaster.
>
> You might be able to use it in these days as well.
> xmlBlaster supports some SOCKET transport layer instead of CORBA. It might
> even be faster.
>
> It seems that there is no other way around than this to avoid singleton
> CORBA conflicts discussed here a year ago.
> [...]
>
> cheers
>
> Heinrich

--
Mark J Stang
System Architect
Cybershop Systems