JMS Queue Bridging. I looked at the JMS to JMS Bridge
<http://activemq.apache.org/jms-to-jms-bridge.html> Article, and the
Network of Brokers <http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html>
Article. Both seem like similar ways of doing the same thing.
Here is our situation:
The idea is Application A will put messages on Broker A --> 'queue_in' in
one data center, which will get picked up by Broker B --> 'queue_in' in
another data center for Application B to process. If there is an error,
Application B will place a message on Broker B --> 'queue_out' for Broker A
--> 'queue_out' to pick up and process.
2 ActiveMQ Servers set up on a WAN.
Broker A is a Standalone Instance.
Broker B is an in JVM queue, and not a Standalone Instance.
Broker B connecting to Broker A using JMS Bridge Connector settings.
Broker B is set up with "duplex='true'".
Broker B has a Temporary Queue that is not to be forwarded back to Broker A.
There were different issues noticed:
Broker A Enqueue/Dequeue count would rise even though messages were not
Could put messages on one queue, but could not get messages off of other
queue, even though ActiveMQ Admin Console (not hawt.io console) showed there
Sporadic behaviour when dealing with WAN. However, worked fine within a LAN.
What it seemed like was the reliability of ActiveMQ JMS Bridging was not
there. According to this article from 2006, JMS Bridging is supposed to be
used for different JMS Broker applications. Is this still true?
Is it better to just use a Network of Brokers instead of JMS Bridge when
going across data centers? Or will JMS Bridge work just fine, and we have a
*Broker A Configuration:**Broker B Configuration:*
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JMS-to-JMS-Bridge-vs-Network-of-Brokers-tp4681063.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.