Mailing-List: contact users-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <28972639.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: LaRockstar <jesper.spring@gmail.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ Topology Question - possible?
In-Reply-To: <28971659.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <28970927.post@talk.nabble.com> <28971659.post@talk.nabble.com>


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
..


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?

Thanks!

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28972639.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.