You may want to consider "Virtual Topics" as a workaround and good
alternative to durable topic subscriptions. Go to this page to find out more
about Virtual Topics and see "Why JMS Durable Topics Suck" d:)
http://activemq.apache.org/virtual-destinations.html
Joe
Bidimus wrote:
>
> I'm working with a configuration of three networked brokers each with a
> bridge to the other two. The purpose is to provide redundancy as well as
> load balancing.
>
> It works as expected for Queues and non-durable topic subscriptions.
>
> Durable topic subscriptions though seem to be exhibiting a problem and I'm
> not sure if it's the release I'm using or a configuration problem. When a
> durable subscription is made, durable subscriptions are made across the
> bridge on the other two brokers. When the durable subscription is
> destroyed though, the two durable bridges aren't destroyed with it.
>
> I'm currently running the 5.0 snapshot from 10-23-2007. This is necessary
> as I've found leaks and other issues with all of the 4.x releases.
>
> My configurations look esentially like this:
>
> <transportConnectors>
> <!-- <transportConnector name="openwire"
> uri="tcp://localhost:61616" discoveryUri="multicast://default"/> -->
> <transportConnector name="openwire" uri="tcp://localhost:61618" />
> </transportConnectors>
>
> <!-- The store and forward broker networks ActiveMQ will listen to -->
> <networkConnectors>
> <networkConnector name="bridge"
> uri="static://(tcp://localhost:61617,tcp://localhost:61616)"
> dynamicOnly="true" networkTTL="1" />
> </networkConnectors>
>
> With port numbers and broker names changed on each broker.
>
> Topics and subscriptions are made by the clients at run time.
>
> If this is expected behavior then is there a workaround for this scenario?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> - Jim
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Networked-brokers-and-durable-bridges-tf4693602s2354.html#a13870899
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|