Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations

[Devlin]

We may need to support standard subscribers to the virtual topic, but it's
not a drop-dead requirement.
Having said that, we verified the broker network is working for standard
queues/topics using the above configuration, but not virtual topics, even
after removing . VT's are only working when producers
AND consumers are all connected to the same broker. 



--
View this message in context: 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717975.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations

[Tim Bain]

BTW, do you have consumers consuming directly from the virtual topic, or
only via queues?  If you have no topic consumers, I believe you can just
remove your excludedDestinations entry and everything will work as
intended.  As I understand it,  the problems only occur when you have a mix
of queue and topic consumers.

On Oct 15, 2016 6:53 PM, "Tim Bain"  wrote:

> Correct, statically include the topics, not the queues.
>
> On Oct 15, 2016 9:27 AM, "Devlin"  wrote:
>
>> Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one
>> used by
>> the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former
>> because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version"
>> convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names
>> statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nab
>> ble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations

[Tim Bain]

Correct, statically include the topics, not the queues.

On Oct 15, 2016 9:27 AM, "Devlin"  wrote:

> Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one used
> by
> the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former
> because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version"
> convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names
> statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations

[Devlin]

Ok, just to be clear, we define the virtual topic statically (the one used by
the producer), not the individual consumer queues. I hope it's the former
because client queues for virtual topics are named using "app-version"
convention for grouping related consumers; we can't define those names
statically as they're too volatile. Will report back on this.



--
View this message in context: 
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717968.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Virtual topics, custom prefix limitations

[Tim Bain]

I believe that listing all virtual topics in the
staticallyIncludedDestinations element would work.  Please let us know if
it works, so that the next person knows whether this is an option for them.

Tim

On Oct 14, 2016 9:07 PM, "Devlin"  wrote:

> Tim,
>
> The documentation on this topic (haha!) was never 100% clear to me. Here's
> what we want to achieve given our architecture:
>
> Topology
> 
> 12 broker network (full-mesh)
> All destinations dynamic (no static definitions)
> Clients connect and reconnect with random brokers (preference to local)
> AMQ 6.2.1 (preping for 6.3)
>
> What we need
> ---
> + Virtual topics working in above architecture.
> * Virtual topics to support queue *and* normal topic subscribers (can live
> without this if duplication cannot be avoided)
>
> It's my understanding AMQ 6.3 still uses ActiveMQ 5.11, bummer if that's
> true, so as you said, we can't use useVirtualDestSubs broker params.
>
> Question
> 
> If we statically-defined all virtual topics (we don't have many), can we
> meet the requirements above?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Virtual-topics-custom-prefix-limitations-tp4717481p4717957.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>