LaRockstar wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for you answer ...
>
>
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>>
>> If you use the discovery agent across all your brokers, the result will
>> be a full mesh, and not tree, topology. In other words, all the brokers
>> will be interconnected.
>>
>
> Ok, so I guess that I have to rely on a static configuration, and possibly
> use an external discovery mechanism to pass around this static information
> ..
>
> Why would you need to pass around the static information? The brokers that
> comprise your independent branches of the tree will forward messages
> through those branches.
>
>
>
> Joe Fernandez wrote:
>>
>> You do not have to explicitly create the queues at the brokers. They will
>> be dynamically created on-demand.
>>
>
> Question: Assume two brokers B1 and B2 start up; they are configured to
> share queues/topics .. At the time that they both start up, they cannot
> communicate due to network partitioning ... Now, two clients C1 and C2
> connect to the brokers, C1 to B1, and C2 to B2. They both create a topic
> "T1" on each broker. Once the network is up and running again and B1 and
> B2 can communicate again, will the brokers be "smart" enough to merge
> these two T1 topic instances, or will B1 and B2 see the two T1 topics as
> different?
>
> The T1 topic will be viewed as one, but make sure you configure forwarding
> bridges between the two brokers.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Topology-Question---possible--tp28970927p28973621.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
