gregory.guibert wrote: > > Thank you for the link on OpenDS, it looks great and seems to solve half > my > problem (alignment of data) :-) > ... > When using a jndi.properties file to create an initial context, the file > looks like this: > java.naming.factory.initial = com.sun.jndi.ldap.LdapCtxFactory > java.naming.provider.url=ldap://host1:10389/ou=adminobjects,o=amq,dc=example,dc=com > java.naming.security.credentials=secret > java.naming.security.principal=uid=admin,ou=system > > The same way ActiveMQ manages the failover mechanism, do you know if it is > possible to define the OpenDS servers addresses in a single > jndi.properties > file ? I did not find anything about this on the Sun Website. >
I think it solved the problem of mutable persistence state accessible by JNDI. The alignment of data seems to be more difficult, however. it appears that you have one LDAP server per Message Queue. At each node, your LDAP server knows only the JMS Administered Objects associated with that Message Queue. This is indeed alignment. The problem with this arrangement is that it appears to require that the client have understanding of the correct LDAP server to direct requests against (the same one that is associated with the "current" ActiveMQ server). If the client can know this, then it doesn't appear to be a problem. But, I don't believe that the client can know this. If this is correct, then this is where we lose alignment. Provided that your code can know of the current ActiveMQ server (preferably in an event based fashion), then this piece of code can always request the JMS Administered Objects from the LDAP server (or ActiveMQ JNDI server) associated with the current ActiveMQ server and rebind these objects in yet another LDAP server (one that is situated "in front" of the others and to which all client requests are directed). Unfortunately, you still have a window between the the time when the "switch" from the last current MQ to the new current MQ occurs and the repopulation of the client facing LDAP server occurs. It is within this window that bad things can happen. I wanted to discuss this with you as much as possible because it is interesting, but I am afraid that I don't know nearly enough about fail-over to really add anything. Certainly, I welcome additional notes concerning this experiment. Sincerely, jonnie savell -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-and-JNDI-provider-tp21860956p21926497.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
