ActiveMQ vs Apollo: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will explore the key differences between ActiveMQ and Apollo, two popular messaging systems.

1. Message Persistence: ActiveMQ stores messages in a journal or database using JDBC or file-based persistence. On the other hand, Apollo uses a database-backed message store that provides faster message persistence and recovery.

2. Performance: ActiveMQ has limited scalability due to its use of Java Message Service (JMS) for communication. In contrast, Apollo is built on the Apache Foundation's NIO messaging support, allowing for higher performance and throughput.

3. Protocols: ActiveMQ supports various protocols such as MQTT, STOMP, and WebSocket. Apollo primarily focuses on AMQP (Advanced Message Queuing Protocol) but also supports MQTT, STOMP, and HTTP.

4. Configuration: ActiveMQ uses XML-based configuration, which can be complex and hard to manage. In contrast, Apollo uses a simple and flexible configuration file format that allows for easier setup and maintenance.

5. Transports: ActiveMQ uses traditional TCP/IP-based transports for communication. Apollo, on the other hand, utilizes the WebSocket protocol, which enables real-time bidirectional communication between clients and servers over a single, long-lived connection.

6. Clustering: ActiveMQ's clustering mechanism is primarily based on network connectors, which can be complex to configure and maintain. Apollo, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more flexible clustering mechanism using the concept of virtual hosts.

In summary, ActiveMQ and Apollo differ in terms of message persistence, performance, supported protocols, configuration, transports, and clustering mechanisms. These differences make each messaging system suitable for specific use cases based on requirements and preferences.