activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Fernandez <joe.fernan...@ttmsolutions.com>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?
Date Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:51:22 GMT



LaRockstar wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> Thanks for you answer ...
> 
> 
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>> 
>> If you use the discovery agent across all your brokers, the result will
>> be a full mesh, and not tree, topology. In other words, all the brokers
>> will be interconnected. 
>> 
> 
> Ok, so I guess that I have to rely on a static configuration, and possibly
> use an external discovery mechanism to pass around this static information
> ..
> 
> Why would you need to pass around the static information? The brokers that
> comprise your independent branches of the tree will forward messages
> through those branches. 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>> 
>> You do not have to explicitly create the queues at the brokers. They will
>> be dynamically created on-demand. 
>> 
> 
> Question: Assume two brokers B1 and B2 start up; they are configured to
> share queues/topics .. At the time that they both start up, they cannot
> communicate due to network partitioning ... Now, two clients C1 and C2
> connect to the brokers, C1 to B1, and C2 to B2. They both create a topic
> "T1" on each broker. Once the network is up and running again and B1 and
> B2 can communicate again, will the brokers be "smart" enough to merge
> these two T1 topic instances, or will B1 and B2 see the two T1 topics as
> different?
> 
> The T1 topic will be viewed as one, but make sure you configure forwarding
> bridges between the two brokers. 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28973621.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message