For 1) there is a unit test that shows how to achieve a bridge with no advisories - so statically configured - that can allow temp dests using a naming prefix and uses destination gc to tidy up. https://github.com/apache/activemq/blob/d54e0d6ab590b6a6148a5e2629c45b95d3f40eb8/activemq-unit-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/usecases/RequestReplyNoAdvisoryNetworkTest.java
For 2) the bridgeTempDestinations option is the way to go, but due to the nature of temp dests (being tied to a connection, or bridge connection) in the event of a bridge disconnect - all bets are off. Even with clients using failover, there are inherent races in recreating destinations and propagating information about their creation. There is a good example of the usage and limitations in https://github.com/apache/activemq/blob/d54e0d6ab590b6a6148a5e2629c45b95d3f40eb8/activemq-unit-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/network/NetworkFailoverTest.java If you really care about replies, consider using persistent destinations. On 10 December 2014 at 00:00, azdvorak <alex.zdvo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you for your input so far, it has been helpful. Although I was able > to > verify including all destinations (via wildcard) does indeed bridge > temporary destinations, I do not believe this is the intended solution for > the following reasons: > > 1) temp destinations are created dynamically and use the BrokerID in the > name, so having to specify a queue in <dynamicallyIncludedDestinations/> is > not intuitive. If there is a temp destination prefix that can be used that > would be helpful and I could use that for now. > 2) The second reason being: There is a configuration option > "bridgeTempDestinations" set on the NetworkConnector as documented here > http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html This is set to "true" > by > default and leads me to believe this is the proper way to bridge temporary > destinations. Furthermore when I set this to false I do not see the > destination created on both brokers. Where as if I set the value to true, I > can see the destination instantiated in both broker logs. > > If anyone has additional insight I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks > again. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Reply-message-not-forwarded-across-temporary-bridged-destination-tp4688578p4688631.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
