uplex=false, but it's about the static bridge. When
using dynamic bridges as proposed, everything works fine.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp4727986p4728318.html
Sen
no other way than using dynamic bridges, at least for the one-way
> network
> connectors.
>
> Regards,
> Jochen
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
> nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-
> static-bridges-tp4727986p4728049.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
other way than using dynamic bridges, at least for the one-way network
connectors.
Regards,
Jochen
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp4727986p4728049.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing li
er
containers with 61616 mapped to different ports):
--
View this message in context:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-with-duplex-false-for-static-bridges-tp47279
ntext:
http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-problem-tp4678653p4678660.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi all,
I'm trying to create a network of two brokers, for in case one broker
quits, the other takes over. When I add a scheduled message to broker1,
and I stop it, the scheduled messages just stop, and broker2 does nothing.
I expect that broker2 takes over sending the scheduled message (and any
n
