Which architecture must be selected? Or - bridge - to be or not to be?

[junixar]

Hi all,

please help me to select right approach, as I'm new in JMS. Thanks in advance.

So, requirements: there are at least two remote computers, which are located in local network, that must interchange messages (with reliably delivery, because local network don't guarantees reliability) between each other. HTTP can be used as a transport and only HTTP (no remote JNDI). What architecture can be selected?

I see two variants:

1. Two JMS servers, one on each computer and bridge (or bridges?) between these JMS servers. In that case I don't need remote JNDI look up, as I unserstand. Am I right?

2. Two JMS servers, one on each computer, but without bridge. Consumers are connecting to remote JMS servers. Can I use in that case only HTTP as a transport?

Which variant is more preferable and why?

[gaohoward]

I don't know how do you want the message interchange between the two servers. Bridges are used to reliably move messages from one server to another. JMS bridges need JNDI to look up objects on both servers (source and target), so at least one of the lookup is remote. HornetQ has both JMS bridges and core bridges support. The core bridges don't use JNDI look up and can be configured using connectors with http transport.

I'd suggest you read the documentation and decide if bridges (jms or core) are what you need or not based on your requirements.

[junixar]

Ok, thank you for the answer!

But, is it possible to organize remote connection from client to server using only HTTP, without remote JNDI lookup? In other words - the second variant, described in my first message, without bridge?

[gaohoward]

Yes it is possible. You can achieve it with hornetq's http transport support. Have a look at the http-transport example.