Sure Guillaume. Maybe the best thing to do is explain the concept...and what we've done to meet our requirements.
It is actually quite simple. We needed to be able to connect two computers together via TCP/IP, and have a publisher on one system, the consumer on the other. Granted we've got lot's of both on each - but, the premise is that link between is transparent. Currently, we are using a feature of ActiveMQ called "Network of Brokers" (NoB) to create a mapping of destinations/endpoints. Where it gets really complicated is when we only want to allow a specific MEPs to cross the NoB connection. In this example, bandwidth is not a commodity and must be tightly constrained. We were tolerant of all the SEDA flow handshaking, but I believe it would be nice if InOnly MEPS really were just a single transmission (turning off levels of reliability/durability). Also, in our environment multicast isn't possible, and the networks are fairly ad-hoc...meaning not stable. Plus, we need to know about the state of the link. Service registration happens also in different configurations. For example, one topology we support is a hierarchical flow (master-slaves). Imagine a simple sensor net. There would be a single point at the top, where are data were to be aggregated. So, in this example the NoBs need to support "followers" only communicating with their "leader"...and the "leader" only communicating with its "leader". But, there might also be a need to have "shared" data that is available on all platforms in network (health, state, etc.). Ding lifecycle. I could keep going...but, am curious if anyone else looks at it this way. Obviously, the notion of simple performance scalability is one way to look at. There is a lot of capability in the NoB, but I think it falls a bit short. There are a few features that we'd like to see, that would help us federate better. BC/SE/SA-level authentication to the bus, as well as platform-to-platform, or NMR-to-NMR authentication would be very helpful. We've been looking at grid/cluster-like capabilities too - for example, if one platform is maxed out from a processing perspective, sending the SA and the message/task to another platform in network automatically. Thanks for taking the time to do this. On 8/23/07, Nodet Guillaume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Kit, > > I'm quite sure you would have a very valuable input there, given your > experience > on ServiceMix. So I'm starting this new thread. Would you mind > throwing a few > ideas there ? > > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:39 AM, Kit Plummer wrote: > > > On 8/22/07, Terry Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Interesting. > >> > >> We need to have a very serious chat about application lifecycles and > >> governance... > >> > >> Terry > >> > > > > > > And Federating...distribution of the NMR across n-platforms! > > > > -- > > Kit Plummer > > Nobody-in-Charge @ Black:Hole:Logic > > http://www.blackholelogic.com > >
