Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89094 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2008 13:21:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2008 13:21:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 44116 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2008 13:21:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 44100 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2008 13:21:07 -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 44089 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2008 13:21:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:21:07 -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 (athena.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; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:20:11 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KOuVb-0007nt-G3 for users@activemq.apache.org; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:17:27 -0700 Message-ID: <18774090.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:17:27 -0700 (PDT) From: new2mq To: users@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Problems with simple peer:// transport config & Spring In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: chris.goodacre@sungard.com References: <18755772.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I will give that a try and post back with the results. Am I correct in assuming that, at least after a cursory review, it looks like this *should* work? For example, there's nothing flagrantly wrong with the peer URI? Should it be the same URI in both peers (I assume so). There's no explicit broker configuration that needs be done? Thanks for taking a look at this, Rob. -chris Hi new2mq, I wonder if you're running into some gotcha's with the Spring JmsTemplate - and that you should be using a PooledConnectionFactory - see http://activemq.apache.org/spring-support.html - to avoid the peer:// protocol from having to create its embedded broker, establish its network connection, search for other peers etc for every message - for every message sent, received etc. cheers, Rob { ... intro snipped .. } > Here's my Spring config: > //////////////////////// > // spring-config.xml > /////////////////////// > > "http://www.springframework.org/dtd/spring-beans.dtd"> > > class="org.apache.activemq.ActiveMQConnectionFactory"> > > peer://mygroupname/mybrokername > > > > class="org.apache.activemq.command.ActiveMQTopic"> > > TestTopic > > > > > > > > > > > class="com.ssi.exp.TestMessageListener" /> > > class > = > "org.springframework.jms.listener.DefaultMessageListenerContainer102"> > > 1 > > ref="jmsTopicConnectionFactory"/> > > > > true > > > > class="org.springframework.jms.core.JmsTemplate102"> > > > > > > > > true > > > > { ... code sample snipped .. } -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problems-with-simple-peer%3A---transport-config---Spring-tp18755772p18774090.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.