If you think of persistence in the same way you would a POP3 store, i.e the object of the persistence store is more to provide reliability in that
1: Write incoming message to disk, 2: Maintain a journal of actions taken to the message 3: Remove the message from the store once consumed. So the persistence would be invoked on every broker that participated in a message exchange to ensure consistency across the brokers. There is no master storage nor is a message 'replicated' to all nodes. /je On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Steve Cohen wrote: > I am in the phase of imagining what using ActiveMQ to design a wrapper around > a legacy process would look like, and reading the book, which I have bought. > I should say that I am impressed so far with ActiveMQ and the mapping of what > it does with what I am trying to do seems very good. > > I am trying to understand the relation of persistence to the "network of > brokers" concept. In a single standalone broker deployment, it's simple. > You either enable persistence of one flavor or another, or you don't. > > But what does this look like in the "network of brokers" concept? There is > something appealing in this model to my situation, of deploying a server-side > application in which each instance has an instance of the broker embedded > within it, but what are the consequences in terms of persistence? Would > there just be one persistent store, with a suitable backup arrangement? > > Please help me untangle the consequences of these two concepts, which are > starting to boggle my mind a bit. >
