Thanks Bruce,
I am going to have a look through the ActiveMQ documentation. I am sure
that more questions will come up later.
Stefan
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 4/27/06, Stefan Klinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I have been wondering for a while about the notion of a distributed ESB,
i.e. several separate instances of SM distributed across the world and
each instance is only aware of local services. However, each instance of
the SM is aware of the other one, and if it cannot fulfill a routing
request locally, it contacts the other SM instances it is aware of. The
rationale behind it is that we would like to run intensive processing
close to the data. One could extend this notion to a hierarchical master
and slave model, where the master is in charge of a global workflow, and
each slave has to run a local workflow on behalf of the master.
Would this be possible with SM? If not, does anybody think it is a good/
bad idea to have an architecture like this?
Stefan,
ServiceMix provides distributed capabilities with regard to failover,
load-balancing, message durability and routing between instances.
ServiceMix is built on top of ActiveMQ and this is how it achieves all
of these features. Another feature that is part of this scenario is
the ability to name multiple flows so that an in-memory flow can be
used for local communication and a distributed flow for distributed
communication. I'm sure Guillaume can comment more on multiple flows.
Let us know if you have additional questions.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
