Mailing-List: contact users-help@camel.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@camel.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <25781296.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: tnabil <tarekmnabil@gmail.com>
To: users@camel.apache.org
Subject: Re: EIP - Message Broker Pattern
In-Reply-To: <25767802.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <25676225.post@talk.nabble.com> <25706980.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <25751260.post@talk.nabble.com> <25767802.post@talk.nabble.com>


I went through some of the content and what I came to understand was that in
a "store and forward" topology, manual replication of queues and topics
would be required; please correct me if I'm wrong.

It also seems that a lot of configuration and fine tuning would be required.

I'm not sure if more expensive products like IBM Message Broker would
provide visual tools that would make this task easier.

What I feel, though, is that the only reason one would resort to such an
approach would be (as also mentioned in the documentation) that the borkers
need to be distributed across a WAN. Otherwise, the overhead of configuring
the store and forward network seems to be a lot worse than having everything
in one broker. For performance, of course, clustering can be done.

Your thoughts? 


David Roussel wrote:
> 
> Some of the issues are discussed here:
> http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
> 


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/EIP---Message-Broker-Pattern-tp25676225p25781296.html
Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.