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 seijoed@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.171 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1485\))
Subject: Re: ActiveMQ Network of Brokers
From: Johan Edstrom <seijoed@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1345658211880-4655442.post@n4.nabble.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:04:58 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0970715F-17E5-4963-9B23-DE6A3D7E24B9@gmail.com>
References: <1345652891412-4655435.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <CAALdY0w4yLE9Z89LiP6B=CDt5V0dPB-_RU2ZUxChejSyo-_hKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1345656623377-4655439.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <4AE216BD-9622-4D0C-88A3-775035A59230@gmail.com>
 <1345658211880-4655442.post@n4.nabble.com>
To: users@activemq.apache.org

If you have two brokers with a shared database
you cannot also have network connectors
between them, it doesn't make sense.

you can use a failover url for the clients.


On Aug 22, 2012, at 11:56 AM, joesan <codeintheopen@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I configure the networkConnector in the activemq.xml file, I'm =
doing a
> network of brokers. Did I get it correctly?
>=20
> When my clients use a failover protocol, it is a failover scenario. Is =
this
> correct as well?
>=20
> In my case, I have both. Something similar to this.
>=20
> =
http://fusesource.com/docs/broker/5.5/clustering/FuseMBClusterFaultToleren=
ceNetwork.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> View this message in context: =
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Network-of-Brokers-tp465543=
5p4655442.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.