activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Valerio Paolini" <valerio.paol...@staff.dada.net>
Subject Re: STOMP and Failover transport
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:28:22 GMT
Hi Dylan,

thanks for your interest :) our module is almost ready and I hope to have an authorization
to publish it very soon. I'm a CPAN author too :)

Our module adds a lot of features to Net::Stomp, however it isn't an extension, it is an evolution.


Given that, I'll be happy to discuss with anyone willing to share his experience on how to
implement such client class.

Ciao,

   Valerio

----- Original Message -----
From: Dylan Vanderhoof <DylanV@semaphore.com>
To: 'users@activemq.apache.org' <users@activemq.apache.org>; Valerio Paolini
Sent: Tue Apr 22 19:47:14 2008
Subject: RE: STOMP and Failover transport

I believe Ramit Arora and Simon Wistow from this list are also working separatly on failover
transport for Net::Stomp and have access to PAUSE for uploading to CPAN.  It might be worth
pinging them to avoid duplication of effort and get a One True Module(tm) out for the perl
community.

(Speaking as a party who wants a Net::Stomp with failover and doesn't have the cycles to do
it.  :P)

-D

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valerio VALDEZ Paolini [mailto:valerio.paolini@staff.dada.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 7:41 AM
> To: users@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: STOMP and Failover transport
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm working on an improved STOMP client written in Perl and I
> need some
> clarifications about the behaviour of the failover transport.
>
> Let's suppose that a client, configured to use two hosts in
> failover A and B,
> opens a TCP connection to broker A, connects, subscribes to
> some destinations
> and then waits for incoming messages.
>
> Let's suppose now that broker A is switched off, is it
> correct that, after
> connecting successfully to broker B, the client re-connects,
> subscribes again
> to all previously subscribed destinations and then tries
> again to receive
> messages?
>
> Is there any case in which a failover shouldn't try to
> restore the situation
> before the transport failure?
>
> Thanks,
>
>         Valerio
>
>
> --
>
> Valerio Paolini - valerio.paolini@staff.dada.net
> The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne - Geoffrey Chaucer
>
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message