This content has been marked as final. Show 2 replies
That is really not a good idea :p
I'd suggest that within domains you use seperate JNDI name for every JMS object, in fact there is something about uniqueness with domains within the WLS documentation. You cannot target a JMS Server to more than one server. You can use Uniform Distributed Destinations and target these to multiple JMS Servers, but these are NOT supported over multiple clusters. Each cluster needs to have it's own set of JMS Servers in a cluster, using their own subdeployment for targetting and their own UDD.
I assume from your references about "using JDBC to store messages" you are using JDBC stores for the JMS Servers. Whilst you can use the same DB, setup up seperate schemas for every JDBC store, it will cause issues otherwise, or as you suggest, use a file store for each JMS Server.
edit : pesky little word NOT.
Edited by: EramusBlack on May 14, 2012 8:18 AM
Good question: Yes, definitely not a good idea - the two domains will corrupt each-other. Stores enforce exclusive access to their tables via a locking record mechanism, but you should not depend on this enforcement. The second domain's store will in theory fail to boot as it should detect that the table is already in use, but will succeed once the first domain shuts down - leading to unpredictable behavior.
I agree with Erasmus about naming - two domains must be named differently if they share resources such as the same file directory or database schema, if the same client communicates with both, or if they communicate with each-other. In addition, WL server names should be named differently even if they are in two different domains.