Re: [xmlblaster] Clustering XmlBlaster Servers ?

[Heinrich Götzger <goetzger at gmx.net>]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Hugues Jerome wrote:

>Heinrich Götzger (goetzger at gmx.net):
>
>> >Heinrich Götzger (goetzger at gmx.net):
>> >
>> >> what's your goal?
>> >
>> >write a survey on mom architecture for a student work :)
>> Hey, that sounds interesting! I'm corious about your results.
>
>a part will be devoted to the description of the numerous architectures
>available for both the client and the server side, some are using agents
>(joram), peer to peer (openjms), some provide qos, filtering (open jms) some
>provide several protocols, interresting call back mechanism (XmlBlaster) ...
>this list is not limitative and may include other features ...

It get's even more interesting to think about an overview having all (or
at least a lot of free or commercial) mom compared to each other in a
number of disciplins like architectures or features.

>
>the result is obvious : every mom is unique.
>I just want to provide the reader with an overview of the existing solutions,
>architectures

If it is possible I'd like to get a copy of your work.

>> If you connect multiple server-proccesses to this mom (i.e. xmlBlaster)
>> they could exchange messages using the mom philosophies like
>> publish/subscribe or probably better point-to-point.
>>
>> >From this point of view xmlBlaster might be a very good provider for a
>> smart interserver communication.
>
>[snip]
>
>> This however is already possible and no development on xmlBlaster-side
>> would be neccessary.
>
>Yep, I ve understood the philosophy of XmlBlaster that way.
>
>> But after all I'm not sure, if we talk about the same.
>
>What I was speaking is the possiblity to run several instances of XmlBlaster,
>one per physical node, so that the load is distributed. Since the documentation
>speaks only of 'the xmlblaster' or 'the engine', it was not clear for me if
>it was possible

Ok, I understood you right at the first view. You said it already:
clustering. This however, as I pointed out earlier, is not possible in a
straightforward way or an out-of-the-box-solution yet. One might indeed
find a way to bind two xmlBlaster together running on two different
physical nodes. I can not exclude this :-)

>
>> Hope it helps
>
>Of course it does ! Thanks for these valuable information

You're very welcome.

regards

Heinrich
--
http://www.xmlBlaster.org