As Art said, the typical configuration is to have one standalone broker that all clients (producers and consumers) connect to, that is available even when the clients are not. This won't work if the clients frequently are up but don't have network connectivity, or if no one is willing to host and manage a central broker that's not colocated with the clients, but for most use cases, this is the preferred configuration. Is there a reason why this isn't the configuration you're using? On Mar 12, 2016 10:53 PM, "artnaseef" <a...@artnaseef.com> wrote:
> When you say TempStore, are you talking about storing non-persistent > messages > specifically? > > To answer your question - YES, the hub broker, and all brokers in the > network can hold messages during short periods of disconnects between > clients. That's kinda the main point of JMS and messaging middleware, of > which AMQ is one. > > In fact, there's nothing special to do to get that functionality -- > standing > up a single broker and having many producers and consumers use the same > broker is feasible. If there's a need for high availability (i.e. > immediate > recovery from any single-point-of-failure), or a need to avoid message loss > across a message broker restart, ActiveMQ has features to handle that as > well. > > There's actually no need to put brokers on the producer and consumer boxes. > In fact, except in rare cases, I consider doing so an anti-pattern. > > So, here's the question in my mind: will a single broker serving multiple > producers and consumers meet the needs? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-duplex-network-connector-dead-lock-5-13-1-5-11-1-tp4708952p4709238.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
