On 2017-07-31T06:55:07 -0600 Tim Bain <tb...@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > People do what you're trying to do, so this is a use case that works (or at > least, did work at some point in the past).
Right. > My advice when message forwarding isn't working in a network of brokers is > to use JMX to figure out what's going on in each broker. I'd start with the > proxy broker and confirm that a subscriber representing the main broker is > created on your topic. If you don't see it, then something is wrong with > how your statically included destinations are being applied. If you do, see > if the JMX stats indicate that messages are being dispatched to it. Then > check the same things on the main broker, except that the consumer is your > actual consumer. I can confirm via JMX that there's no subscriber on the proxy broker. > Since you've programmatically disabled JMX, you'll need to enable it to be > able to do those things. Got it. > BTW, why are you statically including your destinations rather than doing > it dynamically with a wildcard? Seems like that would be a simpler > confirmation to implement and maintain. To some extent, it's because I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing. :) The documentation is a little vague on why one might want dynamic vs static. The documentation for the static configuration seemed to fit what I was trying to do: http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html#NetworksofBrokers-Purestaticnetworks "If you wish to completely protect the broker from any influence of consumers on the remote broker, or if you wish to use the brokers as a simple proxy and forward all messages to the remote side no matter if there are consumers there or not, static networks are something you should consider." I'll give the dynamic configuration with a wildcard a shot now. -- Mark Raynsford | http://www.io7m.com
pgprc0lcrfH2f.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
