anonymous wrote : I don't follow, what details do you have to know? Suppose you'd set up a bridge to a JMS provider operated by a third party.
If I'm not missing anything, you'd have to ask them whether they run a JBM instance and if so, which ServerPeerIDs their nodes are using, and you'd have to configure your nodes to make sure they use different IDs. That means you have to know internal implementation details about the remote setup. And that's also the special case I was mentioning - as far as I understand, as soon as it's not JBM on the remote side I assume you wouldn't have to pay attention to potential ServerPeerID conflicts? I can understand, to some extent, why JBM users are required to manually coordinate nodes within a cluster and make sure they have unique IDs. But having to coordinate all nodes participating in some wider communication network appears very cumbersome and error-prone to me. Anyway, why wouldn't you want to take the partition name into account when determining node equality - and/or use different measures to make sure remote nodes are not mistaken for a node in the local cluster? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4087625#4087625 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4087625 _______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
