Hi,
I am having some issues with bindings persisting on federated brokers.
My main aim is to have a number of brokers (3 in this example) federated,
using dynamic routes, so as a binding that is made/destroyed with a single
broker is replicated across all the federated brokers. I want the
Hi,
I am having some issues with bindings persisting on federated brokers.
My main aim is to have a number of brokers (3 in this example) federated,
using dynamic routes, so as a binding that is made/destroyed with a single
broker is replicated across all the federated brokers. I want the
On 04/09/2014 07:50 PM, Tor Rune Skoglund wrote:
There would have to be queueing in and out on all devices and the server
(B). B can accept responsibility as "storage proxy". If there is a
message from A to C, B would enqueue it for delivery to C. Then A can
dequeue it as soon as B holds it.
In
Den 09. april 2014 19:41, skrev Gordon Sim:
On 04/09/2014 03:28 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
I've set this scenario up on my test system (I had to add "--argument
domain=BrokerB" to the "qpid-config add incoming|outgoing ..."
commands...)
Sorry!
and it looks promising, except if I understand
On 04/09/2014 03:28 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
I've set this scenario up on my test system (I had to add "--argument
domain=BrokerB" to the "qpid-config add incoming|outgoing ..." commands...)
Sorry!
and it looks promising, except if I understand correctly there is no
queuing on the relaying
On 8 April 2014 15:41, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
>
>> We are particularly interested in your comment "...qpidd (which supports
>> establishing basic AMQP 1.0 links to/from other processes)..."; Chris've
>> tried things like adding a link from a broker to a router with
>> "qpid-route link add..." but t
chine ]
[ S e r v e r B r o k e r B ]
[_]
The "IP analogy" would be that Broker A would not know the route to C it
just sends the message off to B (the "default route"), and lets B
forward the mes
On 04/04/2014 06:01 AM, Tor Rune Skoglund wrote:
Hi Gordon,
I'm working with Chris on this, as he is off-line for the time being, I
post some additional questions:
Could you please expand on how the dispatch router could be incorporated
into our topology? Specifically, we don't see how to set
Hello Tor Rune
Re: "
We are particularly interested in your comment "...qpidd (which supports
establishing basic AMQP 1.0 links to/from other processes)..."
"
I'm pretty sure that this relates to some features recently added by
Gordon to qpidd for AMQP 1.0 the main place that they have been ref
Hi Gordon,
I'm working with Chris on this, as he is off-line for the time being, I
post some additional questions:
Could you please expand on how the dispatch router could be incorporated
into our topology? Specifically, we don't see how to set up a route
between brokers via a dispatch router.
W
Thanks very much Gordon. I have had some previous endeavours with the
dispatch router (in fact I started there before switching to the broker)
and will return to that plan of attack.
I think we will still need brokers in this topology in order to queue
messages for offline clients, otherwise the r
On 03/28/2014 01:36 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
Ah, now we are really opening Pandora's box! ;)
The term "client" here is actually quite a simplified term and actually
refers loosely speaking to a system managing a number of products on
that... client. Both the management system and the products
Ah, now we are really opening Pandora's box! ;)
The term "client" here is actually quite a simplified term and actually
refers loosely speaking to a system managing a number of products on
that... client. Both the management system and the products should be
individually identifiable and addressab
On 03/28/2014 11:22 AM, Chris Richardson wrote:
Static routes might be ok for a prototype, but a production system would
have many hundreds or even thousands of clients frequently being added and
removed. My assumption is that a static configuration would incur a much
higher management overhead?
On 03/28/2014 12:53 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/28/2014 11:22 AM, Chris Richardson wrote:
Static routes might be ok for a prototype, but a production system would
have many hundreds or even thousands of clients frequently being added
and
removed. My assumption is that a static configuration woul
Static routes might be ok for a prototype, but a production system would
have many hundreds or even thousands of clients frequently being added and
removed. My assumption is that a static configuration would incur a much
higher management overhead?
2014-03-28 10:51 GMT+00:00 Gordon Sim :
> On 03
On 03/27/2014 03:33 PM, Chris Richardson wrote:
Hi mailinglist,
I'm trying to set up a broker federation topology with a server and (for
prototyping) two clients and I need to send messages from one client to the
other, routed via the server broker since the clients will be
firewalled/NATed and
Hi mailinglist,
I'm trying to set up a broker federation topology with a server and (for
prototyping) two clients and I need to send messages from one client to the
other, routed via the server broker since the clients will be
firewalled/NATed and can not communicate directly. My understanding is
On 11/28/2013 06:29 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 11/28/2013 05:40 PM, Bruno Matos wrote:
Hello,
I'm using dynamic routes between two federated Brokers and I'm having
some problems.
Here is the scenario: I have one client connected to one Broker (A),
which sends a request to a servic
On 11/28/2013 05:40 PM, Bruno Matos wrote:
Hello,
I'm using dynamic routes between two federated Brokers and I'm having
some problems.
Here is the scenario: I have one client connected to one Broker (A),
which sends a request to a service witch is connected to another Broker
(B).
Hello,
I'm using dynamic routes between two federated Brokers and I'm having
some problems.
Here is the scenario: I have one client connected to one Broker (A),
which sends a request to a service witch is connected to another Broker
(B). There is a dynamic route from Broker
users@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:31:36 PM
> Subject: Chain of dynamic routes does not work?
>
> Hello qpid users,
> I am trying to send a message over multiple dynamic routes but I fail
> so.
>
> Trivial setup:
> * 3 nodes train1, train2 and tra
Hello qpid users,
I am trying to send a message over multiple dynamic routes but I fail so.
Trivial setup:
* 3 nodes train1, train2 and train3
* create dynamic routes train1 -> train2 -> train3:
qpid-route dynamic add train1 train2 amq.direct
qpid-route dynamic add train2 train3 amq.direct
On 07/18/2011 02:05 PM, rfallon wrote:
If I use two subscriptions that subscribe to "x-match:any", e.g.
1) x-bindings:[{exchange:'amq.match', key:'source', arguments :
{x-match:any, data-source:A}}
2) x-bindings:[{exchange:'amq.match', key:'format', arguments :
{x-match:any, data-format:standa
orks as expected. I hope this is of some use!
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Dynamic-Routes-and-Duplicate-Messages-tp6562267p6594653.html
Sent from the Apache Qpid users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.
>
> I had a consumer with an address
>
> "myqueue; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare: {arguments:
> {'qpid.policy_type': ring, 'qpid.max_size': 5}}, x-bindings:
> [{exchange: 'amq.match', queue: 'myqueue', key: 'data1', argumen
>
> Hmmm... it worked for me (albeit on trunk, but I don't *think* that
> should make a difference here).
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Dynamic-Routes-and-Duplicate-Messages-tp6562267p6587695.html
Sent from
On 07/15/2011 04:43 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
FYI - I have tried adding unique keys to each of the subscribers but
unfortunately still get the same results.
Hmmm... it worked for me (albeit on trunk, but I don't *think* that
should make a difference here).
Did you restart the brokers? The d
Hi Gordon,
FYI - I have tried adding unique keys to each of the subscribers but
unfortunately still get the same results.
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: 14 July 2011 16:59
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Routes and Duplicate
On 07/14/2011 04:40 PM, rfallon wrote:
I'll have a go at using a unique key and let you know how I get on.
Great, btw I meant using a unique key on your subscribers here, not on
the federated route.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Mess
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for the update.
I'll have a go at using a unique key and let you know how I get on.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-qpid-users.2158936.n2.nabble.com/Dynamic-Routes-and-Duplicate-Messages-tp6562267p6583763.html
Sent from the Apache Qpid
On 07/08/2011 01:09 PM, reekahdoh wrote:
Hello All,
I'll try and keep this as simple as possible. I'm using C++ Apache Qpid
v0.8, and am having a problem when using dynamic routes with the headers
exchange.
FIRSTLY:
Send two messages the default headers exchange on a broker.
O
Hello All,
I'll try and keep this as simple as possible. I'm using C++ Apache Qpid
v0.8, and am having a problem when using dynamic routes with the headers
exchange.
FIRSTLY:
Send two messages the default headers exchange on a broker.
One Message has the headers :data-forma
: Dynamic Routes with the Headers Exchange
On 06/13/2011 03:09 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
> Will the fix you have submitted need to be applied to the source
> broker, destination broker or both?
Strictly, only the source broker would require it (assuming
uni-directional routing). However it
both.
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: 09 June 2011 16:41
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Routes with the Headers Exchange
On 06/09/2011 01:50 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 06/09/2011 01:44 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for
Gordon,
One more thing.
Will the fix you have submitted need to be applied to the source broker,
destination broker or both?
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: 09 June 2011 16:41
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Routes with
e: Dynamic Routes with the Headers Exchange
On 06/09/2011 01:50 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 01:44 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
>>
>> Rather unfortunately our whole design has been cent
On 06/09/2011 01:50 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 06/09/2011 01:44 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Rather unfortunately our whole design has been centered around the use
of dynamic routes and the header exchange, however at this stage 'an
Wow, that's good work!
I'll keep an eye on progress.
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: 09 June 2011 13:51
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic Routes with the Headers Exchange
On 06/09/2011 01:44 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
>
On 06/09/2011 01:44 PM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Rather unfortunately our whole design has been centered around the use
of dynamic routes and the header exchange, however at this stage 'any'
is better than 'none'! And
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
Rather unfortunately our whole design has been centered around the use
of dynamic routes and the header exchange, however at this stage 'any'
is better than 'none'! And at least I know I'm not going insane!
So
On 06/09/2011 10:02 AM, Fallon, Richard wrote:
Hello all,
Can anyone confirm if I can use dynamic routes with the headers exchange
in Qpid 0.8 c++ broker?
It is certainly expected to work now. There are a handful of automated
tests for that case that were added in at
http://svn.apache.org
Hello all,
Can anyone confirm if I can use dynamic routes with the headers exchange
in Qpid 0.8 c++ broker?
As per previous mail I am unable to get it to work, and am wondering if
it is possible, if I am doing something wrong or maybe need to upgrade
versions?
Thanks
Richard
All,
I have been happily using federated brokers linked via dynamic routes
using the topic exchange. As you know this allows me to publish to one
broker and subscribe to that data from another, great!
However I have recently switched to using the headers exchange for
subscriptions, but am
44 matches
Mail list logo
