To me this sounds like a bug, where you get two connections because you use two
lists.
as in why doesn't it use the topology list straight away? Fair enough for
discovery of that topology is should temporarily make a connection using the
static connections, but it should disconnect and reconnec
There's no one-size-fits-all answer here. The basic thing to know is that
destination policies are specific to a given broker and the presence of a
given policy on one broker doesn't cause another broker to automatically
apply the same policy.
Beyond that, how you configure each broker in an NoB d
I agree we could add an option. We could use the URI parameters Thought as
a beanUtils?
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:36 PM Justin Bertram wrote:
> I agree there should be an option to stick with the "initial" connectors
> rather than being forced to use the topology. This would be an option on
>
I agree there should be an option to stick with the "initial" connectors
rather than being forced to use the topology. This would be an option on
the Netty connector. I think "useTopology" (defaults to true) would be a
good name.
Justin
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM, cjaniake
wrote:
> Hi th
Hi!
I am trying to use the "suppressMBean" functionality. It is not clear from
the examples how to remove particular actions. In my case, I would like to
remove the "terminateJVM" action and a couple other actions as well.
Thanks!
aryeh
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324
I just wanted to encapsulate whatever is needed and being a two lines
operation for users. As easy as creating a server. That would be great.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:33 PM Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the patch for TomEE: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pu
This is the patch for TomEE: https://github.com/apache/tomee/pull/99/ - I'm
giving folks an opportunity to give some feedback before I merge it in. All
being well, I should be able to merge that soon. To get this working in
TomEE, Jonathan Fisher actually did the vast majority of the work here, and
If you give me some pointers on what is needed to run Tomee with Artemis?
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Jonathan Gallimore
wrote:
> Sure thing - I'll do that JIRA now and make the change. I haven't done much
> with the CLI (just created a broker really), but I'd love to help out with
> that. I
Hi, Tim!
> I'm not aware of any runtime modification of the compiled sources, and
> I've
> never encountered anything that looked like it when attaching with a
> debugger, but please post your question to the dev list to be sure.
Ok, done.
> BTW, I've experienced a similar "impossible" exception
JIRA opened: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-1321. That
commit should be updated now - hope its all ok. Many thanks for this!
Jon
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Jonathan Gallimore <
jonathan.gallim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure thing - I'll do that JIRA now and make the change. I h
Sure thing - I'll do that JIRA now and make the change. I haven't done much
with the CLI (just created a broker really), but I'd love to help out with
that. I can dig in later this week. No doubt I'll have some questions, I'll
come back with those once I've taken an initial look.
Cheers
Jon
On W
I just requested you a change (just adding a JIRA to the commit)
and would you help us documenting, and perhaps contributing a patch to
the CLI? we can collaborate on that.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Clebert Suconic
wrote:
> Will merge it shortly.
>
>
> I wanted to have the cli being able
Will merge it shortly.
I wanted to have the cli being able to install the RA on tommee. Like:
Artemis tomee /tomeefolder
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:55 PM jgallimore
wrote:
> I appreciate this is quite an old thread... but I think I have a working
> patch for TomEE that enables TomEE to use Ar
I appreciate this is quite an old thread... but I think I have a working
patch for TomEE that enables TomEE to use Artemis as a JMS provider. The
only issue that I have run into is that TomEE's proxy generation effectively
creates a subclass, and the 'final' modifier on
org.apache.activemq.artemis.
We currently have a single broker that is configured with several
entries (all for topics). We will be a network of
brokers.
My question is this: how should I deal with the entries?
Do they need to be replicated across all brokers' configuration files?
Across some subset of brokers (say, brokers
Re: In our scenario we want something that independently forwards messages
between queues in different brokers...Here's an illustration...
To me it looks like your illustration is depicting a scenario where
messages are exchanged between Alice and Bob. That's exactly the kind of
functionality tha
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM, adagys wrote:
> So I had a look at qpid-dispatch, but it doesn't seem to solve our problem.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding, the way it works is that a client
> (consumer/producer) connects to the router, which then links it to another
> endpoint – a queue inside a b
On 2017-08-02 12:14, Timothy Bish wrote:
On 08/02/2017 12:02 PM, Munson, Eric wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to use activemq-cpp as a message producer and I cannot get
the system setup. I have built and installed activemq-cpp using the
distro versions of apr and aprutil on Ubuntu 17.04. When I try a
So I had a look at qpid-dispatch, but it doesn't seem to solve our problem.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the way it works is that a client
(consumer/producer) connects to the router, which then links it to another
endpoint – a queue inside a broker, or producer/consumer. In our scenario we
want som
On 08/02/2017 12:02 PM, Munson, Eric wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to use activemq-cpp as a message producer and I cannot get
the system setup. I have built and installed activemq-cpp using the
distro versions of apr and aprutil on Ubuntu 17.04. When I try and
create a ConnectionFactory with the fo
Hi,
I am trying to use activemq-cpp as a message producer and I cannot get
the system setup. I have built and installed activemq-cpp using the
distro versions of apr and aprutil on Ubuntu 17.04. When I try and
create a ConnectionFactory with the following code (simplified from my
process fo
Hi there, I have been using the ActiveMQ Artemis JMS interface without JNDI.
We are not using server discovery, we use static connectors instead.
In the connection factory configuration we supply a list of hosts, that are
located on two different datacenters, acting as two different clusters.
Using
Hello,
I was reading http://activemq.apache.org/kahadb.html and found that
concurrentStoreAndDispatchTopics option not recommended (so it default to
false) while concurrentStoreAndDispatchQueues is default to true (so I
assume concurrentStoreAndDispatchQueues is recommended). So why is
concurrent
Looks like this was a dead end. I found the reason I needed to start the
connectors was because I added them after the broker was already running. I
guess if you add them before you start the broker then you don't need to
start them explicitly...
Tomas
--
View this message in context:
http://a
'Ello.
On 2017-08-02T00:19:48 -0700
tpavelka wrote:
> I know nothing about static destinations but one thing I noticed in your
> Github code: when you add network and transport connectors, you do not start
> them. I tested this with one of my sample ActiveMQ programs and if I don't
> start the c
I know nothing about static destinations but one thing I noticed in your
Github code: when you add network and transport connectors, you do not start
them. I tested this with one of my sample ActiveMQ programs and if I don't
start the connectors then there are no messages flowing.
Try to use:
org
26 matches
Mail list logo
