I had a problem with the destiantion-type (was not set) in my spring listener configuration, it's working now... (after setting dest.type = topic)
BTJ On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:27:32 +0100 Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote: > Hi, it should work for topics, the same as for queues. The only problem I > can anticipate is that you may use non-durable topic subscribers. Check out > these articles > > http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-durable-queues-and-topics-work.html > http://activemq.apache.org/why-do-i-not-receive-messages-on-my-durable-topic-subscription.html > > If that is not a problem, try turning on debugging and diagnose what is > happening. > > Cheers > -- > Dejan Bosanac > > Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> wrote: > > > Or maybe I am doing this wrong... I am using same kind of jsm:listener that > > I use to read messages from a queue... Should this work or do I have to > > subscribe to a topic som other way? (I can't seem to find any examples on > > how to read topic messages using Spring...) > > > > > > BTJ > > > > > > > > Quoting Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no>: > > > > There is one thing that is still not working... > >> > >> I changed the queue <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> to > >> a topic: > >> > >> <topic physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > >> > >> And it seems to be workin because when posting a message to that topic on > >> the central server, it is forwarded to both boserver1 and boserver2. But > >> when a client connects to either boserver1 or boserver2, there is no topic > >> in the topic queue to be read and I guess I am still missing something? > >> > >> > >> BTJ > >> > >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:31:21 +0100 > >> Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> wrote: > >> > >> Hmmm... I might have the config correct... I was confused by the fact > >>> that all the queues are display on the admin page of both boserver1 and > >>> boserver2... (but the messages seems to only bo delivered where they are > >>> supposed to...) > >>> > >>> But could any verify that my config is correct? and that there isn't any > >>> more configuration I should/could use? > >>> > >>> > >>> BTJ > >>> > >>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:06:37 +0100 > >>> Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hmmm... That's the example I have used but I don't get the config > >>> correct... > >>> > > >>> > The is the config for the central broker: > >>> > > >>> > <networkConnector name="bridge_boserver1" uri="static://(tcp:// > >>> 10.4.34.26:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="false" > >>> > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <excludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > >>> > </excludedDestinations> > >>> > <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > >>> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <duplex>true</duplex> > >>> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > >>> > </networkConnector> > >>> > <networkConnector name="bridge_boserver2" > >>> uri="static://(tcp://10.4.34.19:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" > >>> conduitSubscriptions="false" > >>> > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> <excludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > >>> > </excludedDestinations> > >>> > <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > >>> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <duplex>true</duplex> > >>> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > >>> > </networkConnector> > >>> > </networkConnectors> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > And this is for the boserver1 broker..: > >>> > > >>> > <networkConnectors> > >>> > <!-- by default just auto discover the other brokers --> > >>> > <!--<networkConnector name="default-nc" > >>> uri="multicast://default"/>--> > >>> > <!-- Example of a static configuration: > >>> > <networkConnector name="host1 and host2" > >>> uri="static://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616)"/> > >>> > --> > >>> > <networkConnector name="bridge" uri="static://(tcp:// > >>> 10.4.34.10:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="false" > >>> > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> > >>> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver1"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > >>> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <duplex>true</duplex> > >>> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > >>> > </networkConnector> > >>> > </networkConnectors> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > And this is for the boserver2 broker..: > >>> > > >>> > <networkConnectors> > >>> > <!-- by default just auto discover the other brokers --> > >>> > <!-- Example of a static configuration: > >>> > <networkConnector name="host1 and host2" > >>> uri="static://(tcp://host1:61616,tcp://host2:61616)"/> > >>> > --> > >>> > <networkConnector name="bridge" uri="static://(tcp:// > >>> 10.4.34.10:61616)" dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="false" > >>> > decreaseNetworkConsumerPriority="false"> > >>> <staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <queue physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.queue"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfiles_boserver2"/> > >>> > <queue > >>> physicalName="no.asp.nexstep.xmlfilesall"/> > >>> > </staticallyIncludedDestinations> > >>> > <duplex>true</duplex> > >>> > <networkTTL>1</networkTTL> > >>> > </networkConnector> > >>> > </networkConnectors> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > The problem is that all the queues are available on both boserver1 > >>> broker and boserv2 broker (I thought that boserver1 should not see the > >>> bosever2 > >>> > queue and boserver2 should not have seen the boserver1 queue but they > >>> do). > >>> > > >>> > What I want is messages posted on boserver1 should only reach the > >>> central broker (and not the boserver2 broker). Also messages posted on the > >>> > central broker should reach either boserver1 or boserver2 (and not > >>> based on a random outcome which). Also some messages posted on the central > >>> > broker should be delivered to both boserver1 and boserver2 broker... > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > So what am I missing? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > BTJ > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:48:23 +0100 > >>> > Dejan Bosanac <de...@nighttale.net> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hi Bjorn, > >>> > > > >>> > > this is exactly what network of brokers are supposed to do. Note that > >>> broker > >>> > > will forward a message to other broker only if there is a consumer > >>> for that > >>> > > destination on the other broker. You can ensure that messages go only > >>> to the > >>> > > next broker in the network, by setting networkTTL parameter to 1. You > >>> can > >>> > > also exclude some destinations for a certain network connector and > >>> ensure > >>> > > that messages are never forwarded. Take a look at > >>> > > http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html for more > >>> detailed > >>> > > examples. > >>> > > > >>> > > Hope this helps > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Dejan Bosanac > >>> > > > >>> > > Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ > >>> > > ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ > >>> > > Blog - http://www.nighttale.net > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Bjørn T Johansen <b...@havleik.no> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Not sure how to configure this or if it's even possible with > >>> ActiveMQ. > >>> > > > The system we are want to use is as follows.: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > One central broker. > >>> > > > X number of "client brokers", placed in different location (over > >>> WAN) but > >>> > > > with contact to the central broker > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The clients connects to the "client brokers" and when they post a > >>> message > >>> > > > to a "client broker" it should be forwarded to the central broker > >>> where > >>> > > > someone should consume it. And when posting a message to the > >>> central > >>> > > > broker, it should be forwarded to one of the "client brokers" > >>> (depending on > >>> > > > which > >>> > > > queue it's posted on), and a client can read it from the "client > >>> broker" > >>> > > > I.e no messages should transfer from one "client broker" to another > >>> "client > >>> > > > broker", all messages should just travel between the central broker > >>> and > >>> > > > one of the "client brokers". > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The reason we want a configuration like this, is so messages can be > >>> posted > >>> > > > even if the network between a client and the central broker is > >>> down.. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Did that make any sense? Is this possible? > >>> > > > I have been looking at a network of brokers but as fas as I can > >>> see, this > >>> > > > is more a load balancing configuration and that is not what we > >>> want... > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Regards, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > BTJ > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > Bjørn T Johansen > >>> > > > > >>> > > > b...@havleik.no > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > > > Someone wrote: > >>> > > > "I understand that if you play a Windows CD backwards you hear > >>> strange > >>> > > > Satanic messages" > >>> > > > To which someone replied: > >>> > > > "It's even worse than that; play it forwards and it installs > >>> Windows" > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
