<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Brokers on Brave New Geek</title><link>https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/brokers/</link><description>Recent content in Brokers on Brave New Geek</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:14:19 -0600</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://bravenewgeek.com/tag/brokers/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Benchmark Responsibly</title><link>https://bravenewgeek.com/benchmark-responsibly/</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:53:22 -0600</pubDate><guid>https://bravenewgeek.com/benchmark-responsibly/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;When I posted my &lt;a href="http://www.bravenewgeek.com/dissecting-message-queues/"&gt;Dissecting Message Queues&lt;/a&gt; article last summer, it understandably caused some controversy.  I received both praise and scathing comments, emails asking why I didn’t benchmark X and pull requests to bump the numbers of Y. To be honest, that analysis was more of a brain dump from my own test driving of various message queues than any sort of authoritative or scientific study—it was &lt;em&gt;far&lt;/em&gt; from the latter, to say the least. The qualitative discussion was pretty innocuous, but the benchmarks and &lt;a href="https://github.com/tylertreat/mq-benchmarking"&gt;supporting code&lt;/a&gt; were the target of a lot of (valid) criticism. In retrospect, it was probably irresponsible to publish them, but I was young and naive back then; now I’m just mostly naive.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>