messaging

I've got a series of "pipelined" components that all communicate through ActiveMQ message queues. Each component uses Camel to treat each of these queues as an Endpoint. Each component uses the same basic pattern: Where each component consumes messages off of an input queue, processes the message(s), and then places 1+ messages on an outbound/output queue. The "output" queue then becomes the "input" queue for the next component in the chain. Pretty basic. I am now trying to roll up my sleeves and provide unit testing for each component using the MockEndpoints provided by Camel's test API. I

I am developing a messaging system based on webBrowser controls so that I can format the text however I please. When the user is offline and is sent messages, the messages are stored and an event is sent for every message when they log back in. When I set the default html and such for the website, I normally use: while (this.webBrowser1.ReadyState != WebBrowserReadyState.Complete) Application.DoEvents(); This works when the program is running normally. When the user is receiving message sent when they are offline, this triggers the next message event and so on, with each message until the last

I want to use a messaging protocol that works fine over 3G, but not over some corporate firewalls. How can my app force the use of the cellular network when it fails to connect over WiFi even in the case that the WiFi network is reachable? EDIT: After reading through the implementation of the Reachability class I remain unsure whether the two are indeed mutually exclusive. It could well be possible to discover both interfaces via gethostbyname() , which I might try just to see what comes out. Use getifaddrs to enumerate the network interfaces. Look for ifa_name that starts with "pdp." This

MS has recently introduced the Microsoft.Azure.ServiceBus namespace. https://github.com/Azure/azure-service-bus/blob/master/samples/readme.md It is geared for the new .net standard framework (as if MS doesn't have enough semi-redundant code bases) My question is, how much better could it be in terms of performance? I can say with confidence, that the Microsoft.ServiceBus.Messaging leaves lots to be desired, in particular when it comes to persistent receiving. A very useful feature of the Microsoft.ServiceBus.Messaging , is the message pump, built on top of OnMessage() method. The new library,

I am getting this error in background page when responding to request from content script. Does anyone know what can be causing this error? Full stack trace: Uncaught Error: Attempting to use a disconnected port object chrome/RendererExtensionBindings:147 chrome.Port.postMessage chrome/RendererExtensionBindings:147 chromeHidden.Port.dispatchOnConnect.connectEvent chrome/RendererExtensionBindings:89 myExtension.foo.sendResponse.state background.js:1573 db.readTransaction.tx.executeSql.paramStr background.js:1038 This only happens after a couple of hours of browsing reloading extension is not

We want to push data from a server to clients but can only use HTTP (port 80). What is the best solution for messaging? One idea is Comet . Are there other ideas or frameworks which offer lets say JMS over HTTP. (Yes, ActiveMQ supports it too, but waggly IMHO. And JXTA supports it too but the configuration is complicated. Something simple is preferred.) The simplest solution for many, many reasons is to use a Comet based approach (like you mention). This means the clients (to whom you want to "push" messages) open long-lived HTTP connections. Those connections stay open until they time out or

I'm trying to implement a messaging system in PHP and MySQL but I'm having some trouble deciding on how I should do the tables and queries. What would be the best approach for a system that allows for multiple participants? I'm thinking I'd probably need 3 tables (aside from an users table). Something like Conversation ------------ id Messages -------- id conversation_id from_id subject message from_timestamp Participants ------------ conversation_id user_id last_read_timestamp The way it is setup I'd have to check for read messages by the timestamp instead of ticking off each message. I'd