Hi Craig, you are right, "store and forward" architecture (with networked brokers, as you explained) would work much better in a WAN environment. Please note that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive, so you can have clients that connects directly to the central broker as well (but be sure to use failover transport in that case).
Cheers -- Dejan Bosanac http://www.ttmsolutions.com - get a free ActiveMQ user guide ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Scripting in Java - http://www.scriptinginjava.net Craig De La Hunt wrote: > Hi guys > > I have a situation where we have one server on a public IP and multiple > clients connecting to the server over the internet on a raw internet > connection. The server has no visibility to the clients and each client is a > separate entity and has no visibility to another client. > > We have looked at the documentation and done some testing ourselves but at > this stage we do not know which connection architecture we should use. > We have two opposing thoughts on what type of architecture we should be > using, Network of brokers with store and forward or, standard Hub and Spoke > connections. > > The idea of using a network of brokers according to the documentation is > that broker to broker communication is less "Chatty" over a WAN, and that > broker to consumer connections are not designed to be used over a WAN. > The way this would have to be implemented for us, we would have one broker > on our central server and one broker per client. > It also seems that messages are passed from broker to broker until the > message reaches a final broker where the consumer for that queue has a > connection to it, is this a correct understanding? > > If we used standard HUB and Spoke type architecture, we would have one > central broker on the server and our client would connect directly to the > central broker. > > I was hoping to find some clarity on these issues and maybe a suggestion on > what the best solution would be even if it is completely different to what > we have stated above. > :confused: >
