You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to users@activemq.apache.org by Bernhard2 <Be...@gaia-group.com> on 2006/11/01 17:03:14 UTC

Re: Network of brokers

Hello,

I experienced the same problem in my tests.

Who can help Sanne and me here? I’m subscribed to this mailing list for some
time now. As soon when it comes to help for topics around “network of
brokers”, I noticed that normally nobody is able (or wants?) to help. Is a
“network of brokers” an uncommon used feature? Regarding to the number of
mails for this topic I do not think so.

Thanks and have a nice day,

Bernhard



sanne wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm prototyping an ActiveMQ network of brokers using 4.0.2 RC 6. The setup
> consists of 2 producers and 2 consumers. At startup things look fine.
> After restarting one of the consumers one or more times it stops receiving
> messages. All the work is done by the remaining cosumer. 
> 
> The connection dialog of the restarted broker looks o.k., but it doesn't
> receive messages anymore.
> (I don't use JmsTemplate) :
> 
> <code>
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,156 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Task]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport: Attempting
> connect to: tcp://localhost:20002
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Task]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: Sending:
> WireFormatInfo { version=1, properties={TightEncodingEnabled=true,
> TcpNoDelayEnabled=true, SizePrefixDisabled=false, StackTraceEnabled=true,
> MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true}, magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Task]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport: Connection
> established
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport Server:
> tcp://dtams0365:20002] org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator:
> Sending: WireFormatInfo { version=1,
> properties={TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, StackTraceEnabled=true,
> MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true}, magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:20002]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: Received WireFormat:
> WireFormatInfo { version=1, properties={StackTraceEnabled=true,
> TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true},
> magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1411]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: Received WireFormat:
> WireFormatInfo { version=1, properties={StackTraceEnabled=true,
> TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true},
> magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:20002]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:20002 before negotiation:
> OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=false, stackTraceEnabled=false,
> tightEncodingEnabled=false, sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1411]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1411
> before negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=false,
> stackTraceEnabled=false, tightEncodingEnabled=false,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:20002]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:20002 after negotiation:
> OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=true, stackTraceEnabled=true,
> tightEncodingEnabled=true, sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,171 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1411]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1411
> after negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=true,
> stackTraceEnabled=true, tightEncodingEnabled=true,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,218 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport Server:
> tcp://dtams0365:20002] org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator:
> Sending: WireFormatInfo { version=1,
> properties={TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, StackTraceEnabled=true,
> MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true}, magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,218 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1406]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: Received WireFormat:
> WireFormatInfo { version=1, properties={StackTraceEnabled=true,
> TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true},
> magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,218 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1406]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1406
> before negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=false,
> stackTraceEnabled=false, tightEncodingEnabled=false,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,218 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1406]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1406
> after negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=true,
> stackTraceEnabled=true, tightEncodingEnabled=true,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport Server:
> tcp://dtams0365:20002] org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator:
> Sending: WireFormatInfo { version=1,
> properties={TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, StackTraceEnabled=true,
> MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true}, magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: Received WireFormat:
> WireFormatInfo { version=1, properties={StackTraceEnabled=true,
> TightEncodingEnabled=true, TcpNoDelayEnabled=true,
> SizePrefixDisabled=false, MaxInactivityDuration=30000, CacheEnabled=true},
> magic=[A,c,t,i,v,e,M,Q]}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407
> before negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=false,
> stackTraceEnabled=false, tightEncodingEnabled=false,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.WireFormatNegotiator: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407
> after negotiation: OpenWireFormat{version=1, cacheEnabled=true,
> stackTraceEnabled=true, tightEncodingEnabled=true,
> sizePrefixDisabled=false}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [Thread-3]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> topic://ActiveMQ.Advisory.Topic
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 INFO  [Thread-4]
> org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridge: Network connection
> between vm://consumer-002#2 and tcp://localhost:10002(producer-002) has
> been established.
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 INFO  [Thread-3]
> org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridge: Network connection
> between vm://consumer-002#0 and tcp://localhost:10001(producer-001) has
> been established.
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,234 DEBUG [main]
> org.apache.activemq.transport.failover.FailoverTransport: Started.
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,265 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> queue://jmsExample
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,281 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:10002]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> queue://jmsExample
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,281 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:10001]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> queue://jmsExample
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,281 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport: tcp:///127.0.0.1:1407]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> topic://ActiveMQ.Advisory.Queue
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,296 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:10002]
> org.apache.activemq.broker.region.AbstractRegion: Adding destination:
> topic://ActiveMQ.Advisory.Consumer.Queue.jmsExample
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,296 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:10002]
> org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridge: Forwarding sub on
> vm://consumer-002#2 from producer-002 :  ConsumerInfo {commandId = 3,
> responseRequired = false, consumerId =
> ID:dtams0365-1365-1162311147296-3:1:1:1, destination = queue://jmsExample,
> prefetchSize = 1000, maximumPendingMessageLimit = 0, browser = false,
> dispatchAsync = true, selector = null, subcriptionName = null, noLocal =
> false, exclusive = false, retroactive = false, priority = 0, brokerPath =
> [ID:dtams0365-1371-1162311149155-0:0,
> ID:dtams0365-1365-1162311147296-0:0], optimizedAcknowledge = false,
> noRangeAcks = false, additionalPredicate = null}
> 2006-10-31 17:12:53,296 DEBUG [ActiveMQ Transport:
> tcp://localhost/127.0.0.1:10001]
> org.apache.activemq.network.DemandForwardingBridge: Forwarding sub on
> vm://consumer-002#0 from producer-001 :  ConsumerInfo {commandId = 3,
> responseRequired = false, consumerId =
> ID:dtams0365-1356-1162311143827-3:1:1:1, destination = queue://jmsExample,
> prefetchSize = 1000, maximumPendingMessageLimit = 0, browser = false,
> dispatchAsync = true, selector = null, subcriptionName = null, noLocal =
> false, exclusive = false, retroactive = false, priority = 0, brokerPath =
> [ID:dtams0365-1371-1162311149155-0:0,
> ID:dtams0365-1356-1162311143827-0:0], optimizedAcknowledge = false,
> noRangeAcks = false, additionalPredicate = null}
> </code>
> 
> 
> The configuration of the brokers is:
> 
> <code>
>   <broker brokerName="consumer-001" persistent="false" useJmx="false">
>     
>     <transportConnectors>
>       <transportConnector uri="tcp://localhost:20001"/>
>     </transportConnectors>
> 
>     <networkConnectors>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-producer-001" 
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:10001)" failover="true"/>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-producer-002" 
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:10002)" failover="true"/>
>      </networkConnectors>
> 
>     <persistenceAdapter>
>       <memoryPersistenceAdapter/>
>     </persistenceAdapter>
>     
>   </broker>
> 
>   <broker brokerName="consumer-002" persistent="false" useJmx="false">
>     
>     <transportConnectors>
>       <transportConnector uri="tcp://localhost:20002"/>
>     </transportConnectors>
>   <broker brokerName="producer-001" persistent="false" useJmx="false">
>     
>     <transportConnectors>
>       <transportConnector uri="tcp://localhost:10001"/>
>     </transportConnectors>
> 
>     <networkConnectors>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-consumer-001"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20001)" failover="true"/>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-consumer-002"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20002)" failover="true"/>
>     </networkConnectors>
>     
>     <persistenceAdapter>
>       <memoryPersistenceAdapter/>
>     </persistenceAdapter>
>     
>   </broker>
> 
>   <broker brokerName="producer-001" persistent="false" useJmx="false">
>     
>     <transportConnectors>
>       <transportConnector uri="tcp://localhost:10001"/>
>     </transportConnectors>
> 
>     <networkConnectors>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-consumer-001"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20001)" failover="true"/>
>       <networkConnector networkTTL="3" name="to-consumer-002"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20002)" failover="true"/>
>     </networkConnectors>
>     
>     <persistenceAdapter>
>       <memoryPersistenceAdapter/>
>     </persistenceAdapter>
>     
>   </broker>
> 
>   <broker brokerName="producer-002" persistent="false" useJmx="false">
>     
>     <transportConnectors>
>       <transportConnector uri="tcp://localhost:10002"/>
>     </transportConnectors>
> 
>     <networkConnectors>
>       <networkConnector name="to-consumer-001"  networkTTL="3"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20001)" failover="true"/>
>       <networkConnector name="to-consumer-002"  networkTTL="3"
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:20002)" failover="true"/>
>     </networkConnectors>
> 
>     <persistenceAdapter>
>       <memoryPersistenceAdapter/>
>     </persistenceAdapter>
>     
>   </broker>
>     <networkConnectors>
>       <networkConnector  networkTTL="3" name="to-producer-001" 
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:10001)" failover="true"/>
>       <networkConnector  networkTTL="3" name="to-producer-002" 
> dynamicOnly="true" conduitSubscriptions="true"
> uri="static:(tcp://localhost:10002)" failover="true"/>
>      </networkConnectors>
> 
>     <persistenceAdapter>
>       <memoryPersistenceAdapter/>
>     </persistenceAdapter>
>     
>   </broker>
> </code>
> 
> 
> Has anyone experienced this before, and maybe solved it?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sanne
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Network-of-brokers-tf2546736.html#a7116838
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Network of brokers

Posted by Javier Leyba <xl...@gmail.com>.

On 12/21/06, Bernhard Wellhöfer <Be...@gaia-group.com> wrote:
> One question: did you ever start/stop brokers and consumer/producer in the network during your tests. Did all broker and consumer/producer reliable reconnect and where all message delivered?
>

As far as I remember, yes.

I started trying Joram because I've been using Jonas as AS but I
discarded it because the High Availability of Joram/Jonas was so
"naif" and not usefull for me.

After this I decided to test ActiveMQ and I remember I did a test as follows:

Two JBoss server with one master broker and a slave broker (working
with topics). Each master server connecting to a network of brokers
with static ip's and failover (I can't use multicast) and many clients
subscribed to topis with a failover url pointing (ordered, not random)
to first JBoss server master broker, first JBoss server slave broker,
second JBoss server master broker, second JBoss server slave broker.

I remember I did a test like this:

1 - start all brokers
2 - start a subscriber
3 - send a message
4 - stop first master broker
5 - send a message
6 - stop slave broker
7 - send a message

and it worked find.
I guess I did more tests in this way and it worked so I thought
network of brokers worked and continue with my development.

Nevertheless, I asked more than once for recommendation about how to
set a network of brokers and nobody answered me...

I hope to hear soon somebody from ActiveMQ project with the truth
about this matter. If this is not working I think we deserve to know
it NOW.

--
Javier Leyba
Barcelona - Spain
http://blog.leyba.com.ar

Re: AW: Network of brokers

Posted by gabriel kastenbaum <gk...@gmail.com>.

Javier Leyba a écrit :
> On 12/21/06, gabriel kastenbaum <gk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>> Just to add my experience with network of brokers: we just tried
>> disconnection/reconnection: most of the time it did not work. The bridge
>> (DemandBridge...) between brokers does not re-initialize. See my
>> previous emails on this issue.
>>
>
>
> Gabriel
>
> Did you use HA with Joram ?
>
> I've tested it about one year ago and was not usefull for me but if
> you say that the network of brokers work well may be I can think to
> change to Joram before to see my project sunk as the Titanic... (and
> myself looking for a new job)
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> J
>
Hi,

Not yet :-)
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to see it the next days (but this is 
more a joram issue:-) ).

Re: AW: Network of brokers

Posted by Javier Leyba <xl...@gmail.com>.

On 12/21/06, gabriel kastenbaum <gk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> Just to add my experience with network of brokers: we just tried
> disconnection/reconnection: most of the time it did not work. The bridge
> (DemandBridge...) between brokers does not re-initialize. See my
> previous emails on this issue.
>

Gabriel

Did you use HA with Joram ?

I've tested it about one year ago and was not usefull for me but if
you say that the network of brokers work well may be I can think to
change to Joram before to see my project sunk as the Titanic... (and
myself looking for a new job)

Thanks in advance

J

Re: AW: Network of brokers

Posted by gabriel kastenbaum <gk...@gmail.com>.

Hi everybody,
Just to add my experience with network of brokers: we just tried 
disconnection/reconnection: most of the time it did not work. The bridge 
(DemandBridge...) between brokers does not re-initialize. See my 
previous emails on this issue.

Moreover, there is an issue with ClientID - with durable topics. If 
somewhere in your network you have a clientID="foo" you can not have 
another clientID called ="foo" . This is a problem when your clients are 
MDB, because the ClientId is written in the ejb-jar.xml file. So you can 
not have the exact same ejb jar file on different servers related with a 
network of brokers - why not use the brokerName as a defaultClientID or 
something like this?
By the way, why not having brokerName=IP of the machine by default ?

Something else is very annoying: the documentation is ... at least hard 
to follow. Say the master/slave feature: I read it several times - and 
other persons did that too: we did not understood easily how to do it... 
Same for several parts of the documentation. I dream there was a one 
piece documentation - a la Springframework for instance (or a la Joram, 
which has a very good documentation).

I know it is a lot of complex features, lots of complex developments, 
lots of time given by people. And this is an open source project so, 
don't get me wrong,  I do not complain, because I should rather help 
coding... And activeMQ is a good product, no doubt on that.

But as our project is not released yet, and as we tested before to 
release it, and had time before going live, we changed the JMS broker.
We switched to Joram and... it just works! Disconnection, re-connection: 
ok. Several identical clientID on the same network of brokers: ok too. 
etc. We do not have discovery but that's ok, we can live without that 
feature - but we can not live with a network of brokers that loose 
messages, does not reconnect etc. Sorry guys.
(When I will have more time I will do some bug reports... )

Bernhard Wellhöfer a écrit :
> Hello Javier,
>
> Sorry, it was not my intention to make waves. I just want that the whole issue is taken seriously:
>
> A) If the clustering/network or brokers feature is stable, then the documentation and the support via the mailing list are not good enough.
> B) If the hints (my tests, number of mails for this feature and quality and quantity of answers) are correct and the feature is not in a production state, then the ActiveMQ developer should face this and warn the users on the homepage.
>
> At least option A or B is true (and for you I hope it is option A) .... Regardless whether A or B is true, the whole issue is not good for the trust in ActiveMQ.
>
> One question: did you ever start/stop brokers and consumer/producer in the network during your tests. Did all broker and consumer/producer reliable reconnect and where all message delivered?
>
> Regards,
>
> Bernd
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Javier Leyba [mailto:xleyba@gmail.com] 
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 09:05
>> An: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Network of brokers
>>
>> On 12/21/06, Bernhard Wellhöfer 
>> <Be...@gaia-group.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hello Prashanth,
>>>
>>> I agree that the clustering/network or brokers feature is 
>>>       
>> not ready for a productive scenario. The problem is that the 
>> ActiveMQ homepage does not warn you about this case. 
>> Therefore again and again people waste time by trying out 
>> this feature - as each new mail for this issue to the mailing 
>> list proves. It's a pity that this as a whole makes ActiveMQ 
>> less trustworthy...
>>     
>> Is this totally true ???
>>
>> I've an application that use network of brokers ready to go to test.
>> I've configured it with the help of this list and nobody told 
>> me what you say...
>>
>> If this is true I'll be in big problems after four months of 
>> development with this product. I can´t believe it !
>>
>> If this is true I'm a dead man...  :(
>>
>>
>> --
>> Javier Leyba
>> Barcelona - Spain
>> http://blog.leyba.com.ar
>>
>>     
>
>

AW: Network of brokers

Posted by Bernhard Wellhöfer <Be...@gaia-group.com>.

Hello Javier,

Sorry, it was not my intention to make waves. I just want that the whole issue is taken seriously:

A) If the clustering/network or brokers feature is stable, then the documentation and the support via the mailing list are not good enough.
B) If the hints (my tests, number of mails for this feature and quality and quantity of answers) are correct and the feature is not in a production state, then the ActiveMQ developer should face this and warn the users on the homepage.

At least option A or B is true (and for you I hope it is option A) .... Regardless whether A or B is true, the whole issue is not good for the trust in ActiveMQ.

One question: did you ever start/stop brokers and consumer/producer in the network during your tests. Did all broker and consumer/producer reliable reconnect and where all message delivered?

Regards,

Bernd

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Javier Leyba [mailto:xleyba@gmail.com] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 09:05
> An: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Network of brokers
> 
> On 12/21/06, Bernhard Wellhöfer 
> <Be...@gaia-group.com> wrote:
> > Hello Prashanth,
> >
> > I agree that the clustering/network or brokers feature is 
> not ready for a productive scenario. The problem is that the 
> ActiveMQ homepage does not warn you about this case. 
> Therefore again and again people waste time by trying out 
> this feature - as each new mail for this issue to the mailing 
> list proves. It's a pity that this as a whole makes ActiveMQ 
> less trustworthy...
> >
> 
> Is this totally true ???
> 
> I've an application that use network of brokers ready to go to test.
> I've configured it with the help of this list and nobody told 
> me what you say...
> 
> If this is true I'll be in big problems after four months of 
> development with this product. I can´t believe it !
> 
> If this is true I'm a dead man...  :(
> 
> 
> --
> Javier Leyba
> Barcelona - Spain
> http://blog.leyba.com.ar
>