It was a design choice for at least the following reasons (there may be more reasons I'm not recalling at the moment). Every node in a cluster has its own set of messages. If a client is working with a particular message or group of messages then when the master fails and the client fails over to the backup then the backup will have those same messages. The backup will also have the same persistent metadata for things like XA transaction state as well as all the same queues. Another node in the cluster certainly won't have the same messages or transaction meta-data and it may not even have the same queues (there is no strict requirement for cluster nodes to be completely symmetric) so the idea of "transparent fail-over" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Justin On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:07 AM AntonR <anton.roskv...@volvo.com> wrote: > Why is that, is there some design choice behind it or could this be > implemented as a feature? > > If not, is there some solution to failing over to other active nodes with > core clients, or should this just be done with, for instance, an openwire > client using the failover protocol? > > Br, > Anton > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-User-f2341805.html > >
