Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 31245 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 20:40:06 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 20:40:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 27537 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2006 20:40:05 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 27522 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2006 20:40:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 27513 invoked by uid 99); 19 Oct 2006 20:40:05 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:40:05 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of xalibur@nexgo.de designates 151.189.21.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [151.189.21.50] (HELO mail-in-10.arcor-online.net) (151.189.21.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:40:03 -0700 Received: from mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.16]) by mail-in-10.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3192CDEB8; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (mail-in-05.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.45]) by mail-in-04-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FEAABCB2; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:39:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.229.93.157] (pD9E55D9D.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.93.157]) (Authenticated sender: linda.floren@arcor.de) by mail-in-05.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 100D012C335; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:39:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4537E316.2090303@nexgo.de> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:41:58 +0200 From: Xalibur User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org, Hiram Chirino Subject: Re: Bug AMQ-810 not fixed properly yet? References: <20923195.1161173745173.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail10> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello Hiram! > > We need to think of a better approach. Off the top of my head, we > could... : > > 1) only forward the first subscription, but always strip off any > selector. That way message to the topic are always properly > replicated. The down side: if that in a big network this kills your > scaleability since every broker has to process every message. Might > not be a problem if you have consumers on every node that need to see > every message (but this is typically not the case). > > 2) if a subscription has a selector, then send a copy per > subscription but somehow target a specific consumer on the remote > broker so that the remote broker does not broadcast the message again > to all it subscribers. Implementing this might be a bit trickier but > should preseve scalability of a broker network. > > Any other ideas? Well, what about delivering an event only once per connection? If the dispatching process for an event kept a list of connections the event was already delivered to, it would be possible to prevent delivering it over the same connection a second time. The event would reach the remote broker only once, even if there were more than one matching conduit subscription. And the remote broker would dispatch it to any matching local subscription. That approach would maintain the scalability of the network, but I don't know how much it would spoil the efficiency of the dispatching process. Best regards Linda