[Jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss Integration] - Re: Proposed Foundation for JBI

[<ad...@jb...>]

There is an overloaded acronym here
MC -> MicroContainer (I'll use this one :-)
MC -> Messaging Core

"ju...@jb..." wrote : 
  | Right. At which point the question that comes up is why there is need for two implementations of fast, synchronous, in-VM bus implementations?
  | 
  | If the Messaging Core is capable of equal performance to MicroContainer bus, should it then be placed as the bus for the MicroContainer?
  | 

The MicroContainer Bus is just a switching mechanism
name -> object reference (which can be aspectized to have a "container")

The Messaging Core is a "container" implementation for message routing which could be
remote/local, synchronous/asynchronous, reliable/unreliable, etc.

The Message Core only becomes a bus when you put a broker in front of it
e.g. for the jms facade, create channels that implement queues/topics and add them to the destination manager.
Other brokers/buses are equally possible as front ends (including the MC bus),
in the same way as you can have a byte code engineered class, a dynamic proxy
or some other front end to an AOP aspect chain.

The "container" could equally be an aspectized POJO with an enhanced version
of the asynchronous/remoting aspects (e.g. add reliablity).

You shouldn't confuse the two responsibilites:
1) Dispatch based on a name/indirection (the bus)
2) The method/aspects of the dispatch (the container)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3887177#3887177

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3887177