Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80793 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2011 14:15:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2011 14:15:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 66640 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2011 14:15:40 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 66611 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2011 14:15:40 -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 66602 invoked by uid 99); 7 Mar 2011 14:15:40 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:15:40 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of james.mk.green@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.171] (HELO mail-iy0-f171.google.com) (209.85.210.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:15:33 +0000 Received: by iyf40 with SMTP id 40so5113299iyf.2 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:15:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+TDhZ1rOIsNcdo9VvECHDmrFUp1ehEQbTe6wOf1dKpM=; b=YiuBButK+WG5O+f/1O5VT7z5sUF5331leRM753IKxEvJCTn9HiEFUJ8YwBhkw82Ugb HZ6aOoIq/rZ7uatwZK7a+EKwA3TW4yiqx0pCxgFFEauNsS6fjs/Od6fiG3u7YrN7yqCc ldd9wTn0AduPywO/SrnbAzfrY6kVqieDDdSgY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=wmFm2BkdqzGd+COCZlP03JYrPfAaNbKTfFkWjSYydo/fMfIa6XadkUgGq+l9CXVD3M 87HxYFh0t31BAB9dvp0hYg4ae83AMqX2CxLSPdLRxYV98f1OdDacrWWkHIPe9z7d0j5y agM6P51oH/kJok3IbuxpoyjPpnH3yJ5BhRruo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.206.208 with SMTP id fv16mr2473472ibb.45.1299507312462; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.36.196 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:15:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1299507124776-3339047.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1299507124776-3339047.post@n4.nabble.com> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:15:12 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: In a network of brokers, Are the broker names required to be different? From: James Green To: users@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yeah they do need to be different I think for the network connectors to work properly. Not an unreasonable requirement I think, As to configuring lots of servers it should be possible to say load the hostname of the server directly into a placeholder within the xml file. I did take a look at this and ended up creating a JIRA issue to make it simpler. I do not have a current solution though. James On 7 March 2011 14:12, jessezbj wrote: > In a network of brokers, Are the broker names required to be different? > > I am using ActiveMQ 5.4.2 and using multicast mode. > > I tried to use them with the same broker name. They look fine. > > But the book ActiveMQ in Action says they should be all different, reason? > > If all the names should be different, how to do configuration for them > quickly? > > -- > View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/In-a-network-of-brokers-Are-the-broker-names-required-to-be-different-tp3339047p3339047.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >