AMQ 5.6 vs 5.5 - network of brokers

[Marcin Giedz <ma...@arise.pl>]

Hi all, 


Just wanted to try out a new 5.6 version with such configuration: 


a) broker A - on this broker several services are running like XX, YY, ZZ. All these services create queues like pl.arise.XX etc 

<networkConnectors> 
<networkConnector uri="static:(tcp://172.16.36.7:61616)"> 
<dynamicallyIncludedDestinations/> 
<excludedDestinations> 
<queue physicalName="pl.arise.XX"/> 
<queue physicalName="pl.arise.YY"/> 
</excludedDestinations> 
</networkConnector> 
</networkConnectors> 


b) broker B - on this broker the same services are running except for ZZ. ZZ stream is taken from broker A so statical include is added 

<networkConnectors> 
<networkConnector uri="static:(tcp://192.168.89.14:61616)" destinationFilter="NO_DESTINATION"> 
<staticallyIncludedDestinations> 
<queue physicalName="pl.arise.ZZ"/> 

</staticallyIncludedDestinations> 
</networkConnector> 
</networkConnectors> 


This configuration works really great with 5.5.1 (FUSE version) which means: on broker A, XX service sends PING message periodically to local service ZZ on pl.arise.ZZ but non of these ping messages are passed to broker B on his pl.arise.ZZ!!!! 


With the same configuration (only destinationFilter is changed to staticBridge although both were checked) situation is that: when on broker A, XX service sends PING message this message is passed to broker B on pl.arise.ZZ but not broker A... in this case service XX on broker A doesn't get any feedback from local service ZZ and assumes service is down. It simply looks like broker B is stealing messages which are dedicated for broker A. 


Service ZZ can be ran only ONCE. That's why it is running on broker A. When CONSUMER connected to broker B wants stream from ZZ service then it connects to ZZ via included queue on his broker B from broker A. Even if there is no consumer on broker B connected to pl.arise.ZZ messages appear on broker B. What happened between these two releases in this case? What is the proper way this should work - I mean either 5.5.1 is broker and what I take as "good solution" is rather a BUG or 5.6 has a BUG. 


Thank you! 
M.