Which is better: PooledConnectionFactory or CachingConnectionFactory?

From here:

The difference between the PooledConnectionFactory and the CachingConnectionFactory is a difference in implementation. Below are some of the characteristics that differ between them:

• Although both the PooledConnectionFactory and the CachingConnectionFactory state that they each pool connections, sessions and producers, the PooledConnectionFactory does not actually create a cache of multiple producers. It simply uses a singleton pattern to hand out a single cached producer when one is requested. Whereas the CachingConnectionFactory actually creates a cache containing multiple producers and hands out one producer from the cache when one is requested.

• The PooledConnectionFactory is built on top of the Apache Commons Pool project for pooling JMS sessions. This allows some additional control over the pool because there are features in Commons Pool that are not being used by the PooledConnectionFactory. These additional features include growing the pool size instead of blocking, throwing an exception when the pool is exhausted, etc. You can utilize these features by creating your own Commons Pool GenericObjectPool using your own customized settings and then handing that object to the PooledConnectionFactory via the setPoolFactory method. See the following for additional info: http://commons.apache.org/pool/api-1.4/org/apache/commons/pool/impl/GenericObjectPoolFactory.html

• The CachingConnectionFactory has the ability to also cache consumers. Just need to take care when using this feature so that you know the consumers are cached according to the rules noted in the blog post.

• But most importantly, the CachingConnectionFactory will work with any JMS compliant MOM. It only requires a JMS connection factory. This is important if you are using more than one MOM vendor which is very common in enterprise organizations (this is mainly due to legacy and existing projects). The important point is that the CachingConnectionFactory works very well with many different MOM implementations, not only ActiveMQ.

From here:

• If you have clustered ActiveMQs, and use failover transport it has been reported that CachingConnectionFactory is not a right choice.

• The problem I’m having is that if one box goes down, we should start sending messages on the other, but it seems to still be using the old connection (every send times out). If I restart the program, it’ll connect again and everything works. Source: Autoreconnect problem with ActiveMQ and CachingConnectionFactory

• The problem is that cached connections to the failed ActiveMQ was still in use and that created the problem for the user. Now, the choice for this scenario is PooledConnectionFactory.

• If you’re using ActiveMQ today, and chances are that you may switch to some other broker (JBoss MQ, WebSphere MQ) in future, do not use PooledConnectionFactory, as it tightly couples your code to ActiveMQ.

But disadvantage of spring implementation - it does not supports XA transactions. But activemq implementation supports it (XAPooledConnectionFactory). So, i'd say if you using JMS with other resources and even with another jms broker and want do it transacted - use activemq implementation. And of course, PooledConnectionFactory will work with any JMS compliant MOM too