Valid arguments, and well taken! I think I like the idea of the REST interfaces more now than I did earlier, especially because of the benefits of "remote governance" that it makes possible. I am definitely going to sleep over it some more, and in the meantime, I hope to hear from others that might be interested in adding their thoughts/experiences to this discussion discussion.
As for the "knowing about each other" part, I wasn't implying that the workers or worker-clusters have to know about each other, but precisely what you said: that master has to know about worker endpoints, and vice-versa. I guess I was trying to draw a contrast between the REST based approach, vs. the broker grid approach where the master and workers know about the brokers, and not about who they're communicating with. In other words, the second approach provides a more decoupled framework than the first one. The REST based architecture also doesn't lend itself very well to cases where the master is required to broadcast a message to all workers (pub/sub) - not an immediate requirement in my case, but not too far fetched either. Again, like you said, there are always trade-offs when making these decisions. Thanks once again - I definitely have more clarity now as to which approach comes with what pros and cons. Please do add your thoughts if you have more to share! Regards, -Kamran -- View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Concerns-about-ActiveMQ-implementation-over-the-WAN-tp4657072p4657241.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
