Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22430 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2007 12:53:26 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2007 12:53:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 41632 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2007 12:53:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 41329 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 41320 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:53:20 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:54:34 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1ISuNM-0004z1-Av for users@activemq.apache.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 05:52:56 -0700 Message-ID: <12497456.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 05:52:56 -0700 (PDT) From: jgunz To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: EIPs in the ActiveMQ broker and clustering In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: slobby@twcny.rr.com References: <12486255.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I realized after I sent my original message that I didn't specify what type of clustering I was referring to. I think I understand how the routing rules would work in a master/slave setup but I'm still a little foggy on how they would function in a store and forward network of brokers. My goal in clustering would be to scale the brokering (and separately the processing) across multiple machines so I could just throw more CPUs at the problem if I need to later. Ideally I'd like to be able to add brokers or consumers without having to configure each one specially (or at least only having to do so minimally). So if I setup an ActiveMQ installation, if I wanted to improve the throughput or capacity I could basically take the same installation and put it on another machine and that's it. If I did that and I distributed the same routing rules to each, would that cause weird message duplication as messages were forwarded between brokers and each of them duplicated the application of the routing rule? In regards to OSGi, your suggestion is music to my ears =) That's precisely what I was thinking would be an ideal solution. OSGi could potentially allow a consumer application to install a routing rule in the broker so I didn't have to statically configure them before deployment. Thanks for the reply, I'm stoked to get rolling on using some of these great features. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/EIPs-in-the-ActiveMQ-broker-and-clustering-tf4380185s2354.html#a12497456 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.