Hi Paul, thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. I hope you enjoyed a peaceful and happy easter.
About your doubts on what my exact requirements are regarding the infinispan service, i'll declare myself guilty straight away, and i'll admit i didn't really dive deep into why Infinispan is needed, nor how it works.
If it can help, and it's not against this group's policies, i'll provide you a link to
the guide i was following, where all the requirements of an HA business central cluster are described.
From my limited understanding, i think what i need is indeed a remote Infinispan server, to which all my business central instances will connect.
My initial understanding was that, along with other, optional extensions, wildfly could provide me with an infinispan server, and by tweaking the wildfly configurations, i could setup the 2 different infinispan deployments in a live/backup, replicated configuration, similarly to what i planned to do with AMQ. But from your replies, i fear that my plan was wrong for the simple reason that wildfly doesn't actually include a whole Infinispan server, but just the HotRod client.
Regarding the AMQ cluster, i think i made some progress in achieving the configuration that i planned, but i don't understand what the common interface to which the clients should connect is. I'll explain myself better.
I have 2 different nodes, where AMQ ( the server ) and business central ( our AMQ client) will be deployed. AMQ listens on the socket injected in the
http-acceptor field, and business-central will connect using the socket injected in the
http-connector field, right?
But since i have to configure the AMQ in a HA manner, i have to create the http-connector using a virtual IP that gets resolved to the node where the currently live instance of AMQ is, right?
I am also wondering if it could be possible to configure AMQ symmetrically, so that the load gets distributed on the 2 nodes, while still being fully functional in case of a failure of one the instances. I guess the issue that i just describe regarding a common interface would still be relevant in such configuration?
Thank you again for your time Paul, i really appreciate your work!