anonymous wrote : when node A fails over to node B, node B fails over to node C, node C fails onto node D, node D fails onto node E, node E fails onto node A | | Questions: | | Is this sufficient for our needs? The logic you described above, is what I though for the logic on fail over. anonymous wrote : Is there any sense in supporting multiple failover nodes for a single node? Or does that make no sense? | As the implementation stands now, I guess it's not possible to have multiple nodes taking care of a single failure. anonymous wrote : Should the policy really be pluggable? (Probably yes) I can implement it through an interface/abstract class, however I don't see other policies being implemented. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3988883#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...