Just read the online docs about static routes, and have a question.
Do they allow a 'client-side queue' for when a producer can't connect to the router?
Does the router have to be up, but not the connection?
I'm trying to design some failover for my persistant queues, which as I understand
are attached to a router. So I can't have myqueue@router1 AND myqueue@router2.
Anyway, static routes read like that my producer sending to myqueue@router1 will 'queue'
up messages even if router1 is down, untill it comes back. Then all messages will
be delivered.
Confused...
Thanks,
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Duke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 8:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [developers] store and forward (continued..)
>
>
> You beat me to it Gregor. This is exactly what we're doing to ensure
> messages get to where they need to go even when the
> connection is down.
> Works great!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregor Kovač [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [developers] store and forward (continued..)
>
>
> Hi!
>
> In SwifMQ if you know that routers are going to get invisible
> to each other
> it is good to define a static routes between them. That way
> you will not
> get those errors.
> I haven't used this, but I see in the API docs that you can create a
> TopicSession that is transacted and thus you can use transactions with
> topics.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Best regards,
> Kovi
>
>
> At 08:21 22.5.01 +0200, you wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I am facing the same situation as someone else mentioned
> before. Having
> >used MQSeries, I am familiar with the concept of a 'remote
> queue', which,
> >in SwiftMQ parlance, is a queue in say router1 which
> 'represents' a queue
> >(say testqueue2) in router2. So if you connect to router1 and send a
> >message to that queue, it succeeds even if router2 is down
> at the time.
> >The message stays in the remote queue, and gets forwarded.
> >On the other hand, the send fails, with a 'No Such Queue' error.
> >Just to confirm, is that feature getting any consideration of being
> >implemented?
> >Someone suggested to use Topics instead. But receiving
> messages from a
> >Topic can not be done under transactional control (tell me
> if i am wrong).
> >So, my question is, can SwiftMQ be used a robust,
> transactional messaging
> >solution across an unreliable network (by which i mean
> routers can become
> >invisible to eachother occasionally).
> >thanks,
> >Manjuka
> >_____________________________________________________________
> ______________
> >Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based
> communications center.
> >Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
> >To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
> >UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
> >Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
> UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
> Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message:
> UNSUBSCRIBE developers <your-email-address>
> Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------ SwiftMQ developers mailing list * http://www.swiftmq.com To unsubscribe from this list, send an eMail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and write in the body of your message: UNSUBSCRIBE developersArchive: http://www.mail-archive.com/developers@mail.iit.de/
