Thanks for the reply Matt. I couldn't find anything in the documentation that indicated that failover:() to a single load balanced URL was supported.
This made me somewhat nervous about hiding the fact that different brokers might handle different requests from the client. I imagined a situation where a client dequeued a message from broker 1 and then acknowledged that message to broker 2 - and considered that perhaps the client needs to know that different brokers are involved. If there was some indication, in documentation or code, that this was a legitimate way to work then I, and my networking team, would be delighted! Paul ________________________________ From: Matt Pavlovich <mattr...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 7:28 PM To: users@activemq.apache.org <users@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: ActiveMQ failover transport considers http URIs that share the same hostname/IP & port as duplicates - the path is ignored Hello Paul- Yes, please file a JIRA. However, if you are a behind a load balancer, it is valid to host a single hostname in the URI failover:(https://company.com/broker) and have the load balancer abstract the number of brokers. In your setup, is there a reason to require the need the path to change for the different brokers behind a load balancer? Thanks, Matt Pavlovich > On Mar 10, 2023, at 6:28 AM, Paul McCulloch <paul.mccull...@ifs.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I've found what I think is a bug in the failover transport in 5.x. If I use > two https URLs that share a hostname & Port (https://company,com/broker/1 & > [https://company,com/broker/2)]https://company,com/broker/2) then the second > doesn't get added to the failover transport's internal list of URIs to try. > > This is due to > org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport.compareURIs(URI, > URI) only considering IP & Port to determine if two URI's are distinct. Path > should be considered by (at least) http(s) IMHO. > > The use case for this is an active/passive cluster behind a load balancer > exposed with a single IP. I can work round by using an explicit port on my > second broker - but that's fragile. > > Is this a bug? If so, how do I resolve this? Is creating a bug on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/AMQ/ and submitting a PR my best bet? > > Thanks, > > Paul > ________________________________ > Confidentiality notice and disclaimer > This e-mail is private and may contain confidential information. You must not > use, disclose, or retain any of its content if you have received it in error: > please notify its sender and then delete it. Any views or opinions expressed > in this e-mail are strictly those of its author. We do not accept liability > for the consequences of any data corruption, interception, tampering, or > virus. ________________________________ Confidentiality notice and disclaimer This e-mail is private and may contain confidential information. You must not use, disclose, or retain any of its content if you have received it in error: please notify its sender and then delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are strictly those of its author. We do not accept liability for the consequences of any data corruption, interception, tampering, or virus.
