Hi Eric, As long as there exists the appropriate forwarding bridge(s), w/correct networkTTL, from the consumer's broker back to the producer's broker, there shouldn't be a problem with using the request/reply model and temp queues.
I recommend moving up to 5.1. There have been some issues surrounding 'duplex' connections; you may want to check the JIRA for their status. Joe http://www.ttmsolutions.com Eric-AWL wrote: > > Hi every body > > I want to create a large configuration with dozens of servers. I would > want to distinguish groups of servers by role and assign them static queue > names prefix. To avoid large number of hops, I imagine creating several > different network of brokers connections which will be associated by > multicast groups (with a good dynamicallyIncludedDestinations > configuration) > > http://www.nabble.com/file/p19070151/Nabble.jpeg > > I explain : when I am connected on a broker of group "A*" and want to > produce a message for Queue "B*", I send it to my broker which knows that > all messages for Queues B* must be dispatch to a group of brokers which > manage B* consumers. And so on for groups C, D, E, F .... (a sort of full > web topology) > > each group has a dedicated network of brokers for each prefix of static > queues. > > Some of my messages must have an answer, and I imagine using temporary > queues, consumer on them and JMSReply for answer. > > With this configuration, is there a risk that the answer which must be > sent to the temporary queue, doesn't use a direct connection and follow a > long way to find the requestor ? > > In such configuration, is it better to use duplex network connectors or > two different connectors ? > > I can use ActiveMQ 5.1 if it is better. > > Thank in advance > Eric-AWL > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Large-networks-of-brokers%2C-dynamically-included-destinations-and-temporary-queues-tp19070151p19072871.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
