On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Martin C. <mart...@gmx.at> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Mohit Anchlia <mohitanch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks! Slightly different question. Is there any reason why one >> shouldn't use vm transport? > > Often it is sensible to have the broker as an external running > application, so it is available for procuders / consumers in other > processes even if your application is down. In my case, ActiveMQ is > the messaging middleware for several processes communicating with each > other. I wouldn't want it to go down if one of the parts goes of the > entire application goes down.
But is it ok to use it as VM if each application server is independent of each other? But yes you are right that messages that are in one application wouldn't be processed by other app servers if one of the app servers go down? Would peer to peer using Embedded broker be better? I am just trying to think why one is better over other. I think one of the advantages could be that other applications could publish/subscribe too. > > Best regards, > Martin >
