On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:23 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I made a change [1] based on my understanding of thread [2]. For tribes >> static members to work, the receiver port has to match the port in the >> static member. To make it simple, the fix use the receiver port from the >> GroupChannel as the port for the static members so that we don't have to >> configure the tribes endpoint registry on each machine with a different >> receiver port. >> >> Please give a try to see if it works. I'm don't know which test case to use. >> >> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=889045&view=rev >> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg24873.html >> >> Thanks, >> --- >> Raymond Feng >> Apache Tuscany PMC Member: http://tuscany.apache.org >> Co-author of Tuscany In Action (A book on Tuscany SCA): >> http://tuscanyinaction.com/ >> >> >> > > That is using the port of the local receiver but isn't it that the > static route port has to match the receiver port _of the remote > receiver_? > > We dont have any very good tests yet as the function isnt finished and > doesnt work, you can try the MultiRegTestCase to play with it which > starts up three registries connected with static routes and multicast > disabled, though for now thats more a simple test harness than an > automated test so you'd need to customize it for your machine. > > ...ant >
I meant to also add in that reply... The static routes do work ATM for a simple two registries setup with a single point to point route, the main issue is getting endpoints replicated that the registries knows about but doesn't own. So for example three registries: A linked to B and B linked to C with a static route. In that case C gets Bs endpoints but not A's. ...ant
