Thanks Tim, Looking over things it seems like establishing a network of brokers is orthogonal to the transport specified by the client. A client can specify one or many (a static list via "static:" or a randomized list via "failover:") brokers to connect to and the fact that that broker may be forwarding messages is completely transparent. Is my understanding of that correct? If so it seems like implementing a "Failover" protocol for the C++ client would allow it to take full advantage of a network of brokers. Poking through the codebase it seems like the C++ doesn't support "static:" either, so a start might be to add support for composite transports.
I'll try and see if we have the resources to contribute. -Alan tabish121 wrote: > > The missing features are things that would be nice to add, but so far > there has not been enough time for us to do so, we'd definitely welcome > contributions to the project. > > There is currently an issue for creating a Failover Transport but so far > there is nobody working on it. > http://issues.apache.org/activemq/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&; > mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=1100 > 0&fixfor=11866 > > For discovery I'd imagine that we'd need to add a UDP transport and the > necessary plumbing for the discovery portion. You could create an issue > in Jira to add this if you'd like, but again with limited resources the > fastest way to get this in would be for someone to step up and > contribute it. > > Regards > Tim. > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Key-CMS-%28ActiveMQ-CPP%29-Features-Missing.--Status--tp18139247p18147637.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
