On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using a network of brokers to consume messages and I'm seeing the
> log message stating '... Ignoring sub ... already routed through this
> broker once'. This is coming from the
> DemandForwardingBridgeSupport.serviceRemoteConsumerAdvisory() method:
>
> ...
> if (contains(info.getBrokerPath(), localBrokerPath[0])) {
> // Ignore this consumer as it's a consumer we locally sent to
> // the broker.
> if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
> LOG.debug(configuration.getBrokerName() + "
> Ignoring sub " + info + " already routed through this broker once");
> }
> return;
> }
> ...
>
> My question is about why this is restricted in this manner? I can see
> that we don't want message ping pong between brokers, but it seems it
> should be finer grained than not allowed at all.
>
> If I send 10 messages to brokerA, consume two messages from brokerB
> and then a consumer hits brokerA, it won't be able to consume any
> messages because they won't be forwarded back to brokerA because of
> this rule. Maybe I'm overlooking a setting???
>
> I'm also wondering why all messages are forwarded between brokers. If
> a consumer becomes active on a broker in the network, all messages on
> that queue are forwarded, regardless of whether they can be consumed
> or not. This is what's causing messages to be stuck on brokerB in this
> use case. Is there a workaround for this?
Anyone???
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
