Hello Paul- Yes, please file a JIRA. However, if you are a behind a load balancer, it is valid to host a single hostname in the URI failover:(https://company.com/broker) and have the load balancer abstract the number of brokers.
In your setup, is there a reason to require the need the path to change for the different brokers behind a load balancer? Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Mar 10, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Paul McCulloch <paul.mccull...@ifs.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I've found what I think is a bug in the failover transport in 5.x. If I use > two https URLs that share a hostname & Port (https://company,com/broker/1 & > https://company,com/broker/2) then the second doesn't get added to the > failover transport's internal list of URIs to try. > > This is due to > org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport.compareURIs(URI, > URI) only considering IP & Port to determine if two URI's are distinct. Path > should be considered by (at least) http(s) IMHO. > > The use case for this is an active/passive cluster behind a load balancer > exposed with a single IP. I can work round by using an explicit port on my > second broker - but that's fragile. > > Is this a bug? If so, how do I resolve this? Is creating a bug on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/ and submitting a PR my best bet? > > Thanks, > > Paul > ________________________________ > Confidentiality notice and disclaimer > This e-mail is private and may contain confidential information. You must not > use, disclose, or retain any of its content if you have received it in error: > please notify its sender and then delete it. Any views or opinions expressed > in this e-mail are strictly those of its author. We do not accept liability > for the consequences of any data corruption, interception, tampering, or > virus.
