You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by admarrs <ad...@googlemail.com> on 2007/01/28 15:54:24 UTC
Replacing SonicMQ with ActiveMQ?
I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers.
I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use SonicMQ
as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all predefined).
Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS
broker without the need to re-write the legacy code?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-SonicMQ-with-ActiveMQ--tf3131373.html#a8676242
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Replacing SonicMQ with ActiveMQ?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
If you need to move messages from SonicMQ to ActiveMQ then sure, use
the JMS-to-JMS bridge; otherwise just switching in ActiveMQ should
just work - assuming your client stuck to the JMS API.
On 1/29/07, admarrs <ad...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> For testing I've been using the trial download of SonicMQ version 7. The
> legacy client code was written for version 6, so I guess its JMS 1.1
> compliant. JNDI bindings refer to
> progress.message.jclient.QueueConnectionFactory so, from what your saying I
> take it I should just change those bindings to point to the ActiveMQ
> versions?
>
> One further Q: At the moment this is just for testing purposes at my end,
> the legacy code I have is a validation suite against which the client I
> write has to be validated before access to the live system will be granted.
> If access is granted the live system will be running Sonic v6 at their end -
> do I simply go for a JMS to JMS bridge to connect? In short I'm trying to
> ascertain whether ActiveMQ will meet our needs or whether we'll need to fork
> out for a SonicMQ licence.
>
> I'm relatvely new to JMS so apologise if my questions reflect my lack of
> knowledge.
>
> Alan
>
>
> Adrian Co wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, it really depends on how the legacy code was written.
> >
> > If it was written using vanilla JMS, then it should be easy. Generally,
> > you just have to change where the administered objects (connection
> > factories, destinations) are created (usually from JNDI).
> > It its from JNDI, then you can just use the ActiveMQ version of it and
> > *hopefully* it should work. It also depends I guess if the SonicMQ
> > version you are using is JMS 1.1 compliant or not.
> >
> > admarrs wrote:
> >> I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers.
> >>
> >> I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use
> >> SonicMQ
> >> as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all
> >> predefined).
> >> Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS
> >> broker without the need to re-write the legacy code?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-SonicMQ-with-ActiveMQ--tf3131373.html#a8686818
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Replacing SonicMQ with ActiveMQ?
Posted by Daryl Richter <ng...@comcast.net>.
Alan-
On 1/29/07 5:08 AM, "admarrs" <ad...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> For testing I've been using the trial download of SonicMQ version 7. The
> legacy client code was written for version 6, so I guess its JMS 1.1
> compliant. JNDI bindings refer to
> progress.message.jclient.QueueConnectionFactory so, from what your saying I
> take it I should just change those bindings to point to the ActiveMQ
> versions?
>
> One further Q: At the moment this is just for testing purposes at my end,
> the legacy code I have is a validation suite against which the client I
> write has to be validated before access to the live system will be granted.
> If access is granted the live system will be running Sonic v6 at their end -
> do I simply go for a JMS to JMS bridge to connect? In short I'm trying to
> ascertain whether ActiveMQ will meet our needs or whether we'll need to fork
> out for a SonicMQ licence.
>
> I'm relatvely new to JMS so apologise if my questions reflect my lack of
> knowledge.
Another thing you will need to watch is that Sonic has "extended" JMS with
some concepts such as XMLMessage and Multi-part Message. If your system is
using these, it will not be able to be ported simply and will require code
(and likely logic) changes.
>
> Alan
>
>
> Adrian Co wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, it really depends on how the legacy code was written.
>>
>> If it was written using vanilla JMS, then it should be easy. Generally,
>> you just have to change where the administered objects (connection
>> factories, destinations) are created (usually from JNDI).
>> It its from JNDI, then you can just use the ActiveMQ version of it and
>> *hopefully* it should work. It also depends I guess if the SonicMQ
>> version you are using is JMS 1.1 compliant or not.
>>
>> admarrs wrote:
>>> I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers.
>>>
>>> I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use
>>> SonicMQ
>>> as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all
>>> predefined).
>>> Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS
>>> broker without the need to re-write the legacy code?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Daryl
http://itsallsemantics.com
Re: Replacing SonicMQ with ActiveMQ?
Posted by admarrs <ad...@googlemail.com>.
For testing I've been using the trial download of SonicMQ version 7. The
legacy client code was written for version 6, so I guess its JMS 1.1
compliant. JNDI bindings refer to
progress.message.jclient.QueueConnectionFactory so, from what your saying I
take it I should just change those bindings to point to the ActiveMQ
versions?
One further Q: At the moment this is just for testing purposes at my end,
the legacy code I have is a validation suite against which the client I
write has to be validated before access to the live system will be granted.
If access is granted the live system will be running Sonic v6 at their end -
do I simply go for a JMS to JMS bridge to connect? In short I'm trying to
ascertain whether ActiveMQ will meet our needs or whether we'll need to fork
out for a SonicMQ licence.
I'm relatvely new to JMS so apologise if my questions reflect my lack of
knowledge.
Alan
Adrian Co wrote:
>
> IMHO, it really depends on how the legacy code was written.
>
> If it was written using vanilla JMS, then it should be easy. Generally,
> you just have to change where the administered objects (connection
> factories, destinations) are created (usually from JNDI).
> It its from JNDI, then you can just use the ActiveMQ version of it and
> *hopefully* it should work. It also depends I guess if the SonicMQ
> version you are using is JMS 1.1 compliant or not.
>
> admarrs wrote:
>> I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers.
>>
>> I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use
>> SonicMQ
>> as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all
>> predefined).
>> Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS
>> broker without the need to re-write the legacy code?
>>
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Replacing-SonicMQ-with-ActiveMQ--tf3131373.html#a8686818
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Replacing SonicMQ with ActiveMQ?
Posted by Adrian Co <ac...@exist.com>.
IMHO, it really depends on how the legacy code was written.
If it was written using vanilla JMS, then it should be easy. Generally,
you just have to change where the administered objects (connection
factories, destinations) are created (usually from JNDI).
It its from JNDI, then you can just use the ActiveMQ version of it and
*hopefully* it should work. It also depends I guess if the SonicMQ
version you are using is JMS 1.1 compliant or not.
admarrs wrote:
> I'm fairly new to this, so could use some help/pointers.
>
> I have some legacy client code (no source) that was written to use SonicMQ
> as its JMS broker (connection, users, passwords, ports etc all predefined).
> Is it possible to easily configure ActiveMQ to replace SonicMQ as the JMS
> broker without the need to re-write the legacy code?
>