Researching the question that josealvarado recently posted ( http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/How-to-forward-a-topic-using-network-of-brokers-td4696688.html#a4696745), I came across some seemingly contradictory guidance about how to bridge virtual topics, and I'm hoping that Dejan (who authored one of the two) or someone else in the community can reconcile the two.
The bottom of http://activemq.apache.org/virtual-destinations.html says not to bridge the consumer queues associated with a virtual destination, to avoid getting duplicate messages. This implies that the messages should traverse the network of brokers on the virtual destination itself, and only get moved to the consumer queues when they reach the broker to which the consumer is attached. (Though I'm not at all clear how things would work if the subscription was durable and the consumer moved to another broker after the message went onto the consumer queue on the original broker, but that's a separate question.) In his comment when he rejected https://issues.jboss.org/browse/MB-809, Dejan says what sounds like the opposite: that we should dynamically include Consumer.> (or Consumer.*.VirtualTopic.>), allowing both the virtual destination messages and the consumer queue messages to be forwarded between the brokers. Are those two statements indeed contradictory? If not, why not? If so, which one's right? Tim
