I had just figured this out and tested it with positive results and then I received this response from you.
I was quite happy with myself about it until I heard it was a "quick hack" ;) Seriously though, is there anything wrong with this approach? It seems to work pretty darn well. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram Chirino Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 3:52 PM To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Is it possible? (memory usagemanager and persistent messages) A quick hack would be to send messages non persitent but on the remote broker install a BrokerPlugin that makes all messages persistent on the send operation. On 11/17/06, Chris Hofstaedter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to have an embedded broker with a demandforwardingbridge that does > not persist messages and enforces a memoryLimit against the embedded queue > but a remote broker that will persist those very same messages. Is this > possible to set up? > > So far, I've been caught in a catch-22. I can get the memoryLimit to work > if I mark my messages as non-persistent but then the remote broker wont > store them such that they are available if the remote broker bounces. Or I > can get persistent messaging to work so that the messages survive the remote > broker bouncing once they get to it, but then I cant enforce the memory > limit. > > I'd appreciate any insight anyone can provide.... > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-possible---%28memory-usagemanager-and-persis tent-messages%29-tf2656488.html#a7409939 > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
