this doesn't replicate by default bu tif your databases are replicated it would work Romain Manni-Bucau Twitter: @rmannibucau Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau
2013/11/4 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]>: > response inline below, > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Well, we pushed that feature some years ago already. >> We mainly used it to implement a failover mechanism, or to implement kinda >> cloud features, I mean having each customer data in different databases. >> Also the read mostly pattern AFAIR. >> > > okay, I can see how tomee failover supports this (customer data in > different databases), ATM, unless I'm missing something. > > >> >> Restrictions are mainly transactions not shared and not wrapping >> connections from more than one datasource. >> > > I think I confirmed this, too. > > >> The cache configuration must be well configured to not cache stale data. >> But it clearly depends on the use case. >> >> > i just did some light testing, created a new row in users table in db1, and > the new row was 'not' added to the same table in db2. I tried both configs > below, and they both had the same test results. > > --- test 1 --- > > <Resource id="jdbc/mcmsJta" type="DataSource" provider="RoutedDataSource"> > router = failover-router > </Resource> > > > --- test 2 --- > > <Resource id="jdbc/mcmsJta" type="DataSource" provider="RoutedDataSource"> > router = failover-router > strategy = round-robin > </Resource> > > romain, earlier, you mentioned that maybe this tomee/openejb failover via > dynamic datasources may be more/less what i'm looking for. I assumed that > this would be a viable replication solution. did I assume incorrectly?
