Open esanchezros opened 3 years ago
Hi @esanchezros , thanks for the report and sorry for the delay. Unfortunately there is no way to trigger the failover programatically. This would probably a sensible enhancement since the current failover mechanism is not customizable. However, there were some plans to make it more customizable (e.g. by implementing a custom strategy) but up to now there was no time to do so.
Cheers, Chris.
P.S.: #250 also is related. Some months ago there was a discussion on the mailing list about this topic here: https://sourceforge.net/p/quickfixj/mailman/quickfixj-users/thread/CAFn6DsGzB%3DeFSPt_B0LAZtG_jq%3Dr9HBTSW17aBv90Jrdo4801Q%40mail.gmail.com/#msg37249310
Describe the bug We have an initiator configured with 2 acceptors and it connects to them via an sTunnel service running locally:
If the first acceptor is offline, the initiator keeps on trying the first acceptor and never moves on to the failover ones.
To Reproduce
Expected behavior I would expect the initiator to switch over to the failover acceptors when a socket connection failure happens. This is true when the IP address/hostname is not resolvable (the failover mechanism works as expected).
system information:
Additional context Is there a way to trigger the failover to the next acceptor programmatically?