Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 76021 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2010 17:33:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 15 Dec 2010 17:33:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 88594 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2010 17:33:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 88566 invoked by uid 500); 15 Dec 2010 17:33:08 -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 88558 invoked by uid 99); 15 Dec 2010 17:33:08 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:33:08 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_NEUTRAL,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [216.139.236.26] (HELO sam.nabble.com) (216.139.236.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:33:03 +0000 Received: from joe.nabble.com ([192.168.236.151]) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PSvDW-0005zW-TG for users@activemq.apache.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:32:42 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) From: logosdev To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1292434362900-3089461.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Perhaps I'm just approaching this the wrong way MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm very grateful for Dejan's input on the thread http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/broker-config-if-destination-may-be-down-td3086163.html However I feel like perhaps I'm hitting this issue because of some fundamental problem with my approach. What I am trying to do is actually easy to describe, especially when you don't take security or failover into account. 1. Say there are 2 servers, A and B. 2. There is only one type of message, and each server both sends and receives it. 3. Sometimes A or B is down, and sometimes one server is started and expected to run without the other ever starting. No server/broker is _always_ up. 4. The sending process shouldn't care if the remote server is up (messages should cue up). 5. The receiving process shouldn't care if the remote server is up, it just waits for data. 6. It's okay if we lose messages if too many would cue up, etc. The important thing is that we re-establish the message flow between A and B when they are both available. Currently I have one bridged broker on each server, and our sending and receiving processes communicate with it using a vm connection. This setup works for most cases including transient network outages and even bouncing one of the servers, but it does NOT work if the remote server is unavailable at startup time*. (* possibly because I use a failover transport, which is probably required) What I'd love to hear is how other's might approach this problem? Am I over or under engineering this? Should I have 2 brokers on each server? -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Perhaps-I-m-just-approaching-this-the-wrong-way-tp3089461p3089461.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.