geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to support add a new broker in Geronimo 3.0
Date Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:15:29 GMT
>From the responses in the user mail list, we do find that there is people
using it. Our default ActiveMQ broker only contains some basic
configurations, it seems to me just like a demo. But I agree that this is
not of high priority, we might wait for some time to decide how to implement
it after some changes in Geronimo kernel. For now, think that we could just
try to make those broker info is listed, such as connector info, broker
name, etc.


2011/3/17 Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>

>
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 4:19 AM, Ivan wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >     Now, in Geronimo 3.0, blueprint configuration has been used for
> ActiveMQ broker. Now we might be facing the problem how to add a new broker,
> which is totally different from the way in Geronimo 2.2.
> >     One possible way is to use the similar way in Geronimo 2.2, place a
> template configuration file in the var/activemq folder, and while users add
> a new broker on the admin console, still use that existed big edit box for
> the users to display the copied configuration file, then package it as
> bundle, save it in the repository and start it.
> >     Also, an ActiveMQ broker management configuration is required to
> record all the added brokers, so that we could list all the started and
> stopped brokers.
> >     Not sure whether there is a more OSGi-friendly way to do it.
>  Thoughts ?
>
> I confess that I didn't know/had forgotten that we had this capability. I
> don't know why it was added or anybody who's actually used it. I also don't
> know anyone who is running multiple brokers in the same server. Multiple
> brokers may be a nice feature to have, but I'm not sure why we need admin
> console support for it.
>
> Personally, I'd be fine if the admin console only supported management of
> the default broker. Creation and configuration of additional brokers could
> be outside the scope of the admin console. I have no problem with having a
> general technique for creating/managing all brokers, but that would be low
> on my personal priority list...
>
> --kevan




-- 
Ivan

Mime
View raw message