hmm...i also started getting errors of this nature: 20:49:48,437 INFO [DemandForwardingBridge] Network connection between vm://jboss-2#8 and tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:62626 shutdown due to a local error: javax.jms.JMSException: Durable consumer is in use for client: NC_jboss-1_inboundjboss-2 and subscriptionName: jboss-2_topic.testTopic
which i wasn't getting before. facboy wrote: > > how do i embed the broker without specifying a broker name? the embedded > broker always has a brokername = hostname, doesn't it? if i use 'vm://' > then it doesn't seem to embed the broker properly, my MDBs don't read the > destinations any more. > > am i even configuring this correctly? i want a 'network' of jboss > instances so that I can send a message to a topic with a multicast (or > rendezvous) broker url, and an mdb on each jboss instance listening to the > topic will see the message. does that make sense? > > it seemed to work correctly earlier today, but now it goes into some > infinite loop of bouncing messages back and forth between the brokers. > > > James.Strachan wrote: >> >> On 3/15/07, facboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm trying to setup a network of brokers here...currently running 2 >>> instances >>> of jboss with ActiveMQ embedded. both have virtually the same >>> configuration >>> (including the same brokerName). >> >> >> Broker's names are intended to be unique. Its better to not specify >> one if you're not gonna give them unique names (then it'll >> auto-generate one). >> >>> if i configure the brokers for multicast >>> discovery and send a message to a topic on one of the brokers, the other >>> doesn't see it. if i configure the brokers for rendezvous discovery, >>> then >>> both can see the message on the topic. >>> >>> so, >>> (1) is this because the multicast discovery agent is 'filtering out' >>> broadcasts that have the same broker name as itself, because it thinks >>> they >>> are from itself? >> >> I think so yes >> >>> (2) is there a way around this, apart from manually changing all the >>> broker >>> names to be different? >> >> Don't specify a broker name >> >>> (3) is there a downside to using rendezvous instead of multicast (or >>> vice >>> versa) >> >> The only real downside is another jar dependency and not being able to >> change the multicast address (so there's a chance of clashing with >> other rendezvous stuff) >> >> -- >> >> James >> ------- >> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/daft-question%28s%29-about-network-of-brokers-tf3406477s2354.html#a9491262 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
