Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED22D196B6 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 38811 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2016 01:00:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-users-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 38762 invoked by uid 500); 28 Mar 2016 01:00:29 -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 38751 invoked by uid 99); 28 Mar 2016 01:00:29 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id EC1F51A0545 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.314 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.314 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URI_HEX=1.313, URI_TRY_3LD=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QxpfLhLfOwm7 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 561F15F24B for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mjoe.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.57]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F75C1F72039F for ; Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:48:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT) From: artnaseef To: users@activemq.apache.org Message-ID: <1459125018859-4709977.post@n4.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1458848301219-4709942.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1458848301219-4709942.post@n4.nabble.com> Subject: Re: Why is brokerPath not a message property? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmm, why is it not ideal to cast to an ActiveMQMessage when validating an internal operation of ActiveMQ? Is there another messaging provider that gives the exact same information and, therefore, a need to make this code reusable across both? BTW, I suspect you'll find validating the path messages take across a network of brokers to be very enlightening, assuming the NOB is using demand-forward bridges. Makes me wonder the reason for the testing as it's really testing the internals of ActiveMQ's operation. If there's a need to ensure messages flow across the NOB in a specific pattern, then it will be necessary to use static routing, or somehow implement routing logic directly (such as through camel routes). The internal handling with demand-forwarding is complex. Part of the reason for this complexity is the fact that producers and consumers on the same destinations can be anywhere across the network, and the demand-forwarding broker network has to make sure messages always make their way to consumers, no matter where they connect. In fact, messages can flow in "contradictory" directions with multiple producers and consumers distributed across nodes, or with producers and consumers moving around the network over time. An example of Contradictory flow is messages flowing from broker A to broker B on a Queue at the same time messages flow from broker B to broker A on the same Queue. -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Why-is-brokerPath-not-a-message-property-tp4709942p4709977.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.