Duplex is still up in the air as I was going to do the downstream portion first. A true duplex bridge would share the same connection which is what happens In 5.x. It establishes the bridge and then the remote broker gets a command to also send messages back over the same connection.
So we could do something similar, or we could make it easier and just automatically create two connections. So for example we could define a duplex connection as part of the federation config and under the covers the federation will just create 1 upstream and 1 downstream connection automatically. Having 2 connections could be better performance anyways and prevent traffic from each direction from getting in the way of the other. We could also support both options, etc. On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:26 AM Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > I think your implementation idea makes sense and it is actually quite > similar to what is done for clustering (i.e. each broker tells all the > other brokers how they can connect back to it). This makes sense to me as a > way to configure downstream brokers, but I'm still fuzzy on the "duplex" > part. Does this idea fulfill both the configuration aspect and the "duplex" > aspect? Could you clarify what you mean by "duplex"? I always conceived > that implementing "duplex" would require modifying the bridge to be able to > "pull" messages rather than only "push" them. > > > Justin > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:13 AM Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I recently started to dive into the federation support as I try and > migrate > > 5.x brokers to Artemis as I need something similar to how 5.x does > bridging > > and federated queues/addresses seem like more in line to what I need than > > clustering. > > > > However, I've noticed several shortcomings and enhancements that will be > > necessary to make it useful. The first thing is right now you can only > > configure an upstream broker which is backwards from how 5.x configures a > > bridge (it configures a one way downstream). So I wanted to go ahead and > > enhance Federation support to allow configuring both downstream brokers > and > > hopefully duplex as well. > > > > For the approach I was thinking that maybe if we could add a > configuration > > option for downstream brokers. Then, when the connection is made to the > > remote broker we could send a new CORE packet command with the info for > the > > Federation config. Then the remote broker could receive this config, > parse > > it, and then establish an upstream link based on that information back to > > the broker that made the connection...essentially creating a downstream > > link but re-using the existing upstream way of creating the bridge to > > simplify things. > > > > I can work on the PR and difference enhancements but wanted to get some > > agreement on the approach before spending a bunch of time on it. > > > > Thoughts? Or other ideas on how to accomplish configuring a downstream > > broker? > > >
