activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Failover using journaled JDBC.
Date Thu, 19 May 2011 12:25:07 GMT
the only difference is in schema validation. Prior to 5.4, the schema
was not validated by default so it was ok to use journaledJDBC which
used a spring factory bean to make the persistence adapter but which
was invalid w.r.t the schema.

With journalPersistenceAdapterFactory you are explicitly using the
factory which matches the xml schema.

Both achieve the same result though. Going forward the use of
journalPersistenceAdapterFactory is required because schema validation
is in enforce.

You can bypass validation by appending the url query parameter
?validate=false to the xbean url, but it is better to update the xml
configuration to be valid w.r.t the schema.

On 19 May 2011 13:17, chitta <chittaranjan.behera1@wipro.com> wrote:
> Is there any difference between journalPersistenceAdapterFactory and
> journaledJDBC?
> Or both are only different ways of achieving journaled JDBC persistency?
>  Below are the configurations.
>
> <persistenceAdapter>
>        <journaledJDBC journalLogFiles="5" dataDirectory="${activemq.base}/data"
> dataSource="#mysql-ds" />
>
>        </persistenceAdapter>
>
>
> <persistenceFactory>
>        <journalPersistenceAdapterFactory journalLogFiles="1"
> dataDirectory="${activemq.base}/data" dataSource="#mysql-ds">
>        </journalPersistenceAdapterFactory>
>        </persistenceFactory>
>
>
>
> I am using activeMQ 5.4.2.While journalPersistenceAdapterFactory works for
> me, journaledJDBC does not work for me.It gives error message while starting
> ActiveMQ with journaledJDBC .
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Failover-using-journaled-JDBC-tp3535444p3535538.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 
http://blog.garytully.com
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message