Would it be simpler to use different table names for each pair. So just set the "tablePrefix" on the statements element in xml configuration.
On 31 January 2012 18:34, mikmela <mikm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > As it was mentioned in > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/activemq-user-Network-of-brokers-and-db-schema-td2342357.html#a2342360 > "Its technically possible to patch the JDBC message store to include a > broker ID column in all the tables to allow the same JDBC database to be > used for multiple brokers..." > Understanding all drawbacks of such approach, we would like to use "shared > database instance" approach for multiple master/slave groups of brokers as a > default configuration to simplify client's burden in administration of our > product. Our software allowing to create/configure multiple brokers in > master/slave groups dynamically via GUI. The problem is the current ActiveMQ > master/slave default implementation requires a separate database instance > for each master/slave group. > I was wondering if someone has implemented somethinng like this? > Looking into the source I can see that most of the SQL statements will need > to be customized... This, seems, can be done via <statements> element in > configuration xml... Possibly, we'll need own jdbcadapter similar to > SybaseJDBCAdapter or OracleJDBCAdapter, or just extend > JDBCPersistenceAdapter. DefaultDatabaseLocker might require to be extended > as well... Is this correct assessment, or much more is involved? > > I'd appreciate any help on this matter... > > -- > View this message in context: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/JDBC-based-Master-slave-configuration-tp4345431p4345431.html > Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- http://fusesource.com http://blog.garytully.com
