Win a copy of The Little Book of Impediments (e-book only) this week in the Agile and Other Processes forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

about Pay for Itinerary

 
William Liu
Greenhorn
Posts: 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In the usercase of Pay for Itinerary:
"System sends payment transaction to TransMaster and waits for authorization

System sends email confirmation of successful payment to customers email address once credit authorization is returned
".
And the TransMaster have an interface that will use XML-RPC over HTTPs.
Should I use JMS to send the payment transaction or just sent a https request to TransMaster by SLSB?
 
dinesh pande
Ranch Hand
Posts: 124
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi William,

I dont see a need for using JMS in the given situation, as there is no mention of asynchronous processing.

Just to add more weight to my statement, I have'nt seen any other SCEA who has used JMS as part of their assignment.

Good luck.
 
Yi Meng
Ranch Hand
Posts: 270
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Originally posted by dinesh pande:
I have'nt seen any other SCEA who has used JMS as part of their assignment.


Just curious, how could you know?
 
dinesh pande
Ranch Hand
Posts: 124
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
:-) you got me..

I have'nt said that "no one used". Instead I said, "I have'nt seen any one use ..". By that, I mean I have'nt come across posts by successful SCEA candidates who mentioned that they have used JMS.

For all you know, I could be wrong and several of them could be using JMS ( which is less likely though)
 
elvod
Greenhorn
Posts: 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm one who used JMS 'cause that way is simple
to have response timeout - valuable feature in
network communications. Beside, container is able to manage
clients' threads while waiting for response, which makes
that solution scalable.
 
Gabriel Buheler
Ranch Hand
Posts: 39
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm one who used JMS 'cause that way is simple
to have response timeout - valuable feature in
network communications. Beside, container is able to manage
clients' threads while waiting for response, which makes
that solution scalable.

I do not like the idea for using JMS for this:
1. "Simple to have response time." Remember one of the SLA with TransMaster of no more than 3 sec during peak time.
2. Scalability is perfectly achieved by SLSB.
3. Thread-safe too.

MDB's, when dealing with asynchronous, clearly refer to requests that might take some long time to response. Do you really think that 3 sec, is a required?

Of course, you can still use JMS components. As long as you justify the reason, specially over other J2EE components.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic