Destroyer or JMS?

Question

Is disruptor actually a replacement for the application instead of JMS? I am currently migrating tasks using JMS messages.

Should a breaker replace it for messaging? What are the pros and cons of each?

I am currently using JMS, I have a producer who sends messages to the queue and consumers (MDB) who pull them out of the queue.

Thanks.

Answer 1

No, Disruptor is not a replacement for JMS. The destroyer is based on a ring buffer data structure that is similar to a queue model, but with a difference in how elements are processed and tracked. It can be used similarly to queues, but there are fundamental differences. For example, a consumer would have to keep track of where the item was spent from, unlike the FIFO (or parallel) delivery model in the queue. fooobar.com/questions/33207 / ... for more information

Answer 2

If we are talking about the scope of the application, then yes, I agree with the author of the topic: the intruder came to replace the JMS. In many organizations (including the past of the past), people used JMS to create their own internal frameworks for decoupling application modules using JMS internally and making it asynchronous.

But which intruder does not: it does not replace JMS in terms of communication between applications.

I would recommend using disruptor instead of JMS inside applications, easier to use, more understandable, more powerful, etc.