Since today we used Camel and ActiveMQ with default JMS and a "org.apache.camel.component.jms.JmsComponent". When consuming a queue like "myJmsComponent:queue:myqueue" , the "JmsDestination" header contains "myqueue".
Now we'd like to use AMQP instead, with "org.apache.camel.component.amqp.AMQPComponent".
When consuming the same queue with "myAmqpComponent:queue:myqueue" the "JmsDestination" header of the message does not contains "myqueue" anymore but a dynamic system name such as "org.apache.qpid.amqp_1_0.jms.impl.QueueImpl#718762d8", and we could'nt find the queue name elsewhere.
How can we retrieve the queue name in such case ?
Seems that you are using an older version which is pulling in the now deprecated AMQP 1.0 JMS client from Qpid so I'd suggest using something more current that uses the supported Qpid JMS client.
The output you are showing seems like the code is just doing a toString on the Destination instance returned from the Message and that object doesn't implement a proper toString so you get the default. You should be using the getQueueName or getTopicName from the destination type returned (Queue or Topic).
Related
For an IoT project I am working on I am researching a next, enhanced, version of our “Socket Handler” which is over 5 years of age and has evolved in a big beast doing apart from handling socket connections with IoT devices also in thread processing that has become a real pain to manage.
For my total rewrite I am looking into Apache Camel as a routing and transformation toolkit and understand how this can help us split processing steps into micro-services, loosely coupled through message queues.
One thing that I have trouble understanding however is how I can implement the following logic “the Apache Camel way”:
An IoT device sends an initial message which contains its id, some extra headers and a message payload.
Apart from extracting the message payload and routing it to a channel, I also need to use the device Id to check a message queue, named after the device id, for any commands that have to go to the device over the same socket connection that received the initial message.
Although it seems that Netty4, which is included in Camel, can deal with synchronous duplex comms, I cannot see how the above logic can be implemented in the Camel Netty4 component. Camel Routing seems to be one way only.
Is there a correct way to do this or should I forget about using camel for this and just use Netty4 bare?
It is possible to reproduce a full duplex communication by using two Camel routes :
thanks by using reuseChannel property
As this full duplex communication will be realised thanks to two different Camel routes, sync property must be set to false.
Here the first route:
from("netty4:tcp://{{tcpAddress}}:{{tcpPort}}?decoders=#length-decoder,#string-decoder&encoders=#length-encoder,#bytearray-encoder&sync=false&reuseChannel=true") .bean("myMessageService", "receiveFromTCP").to("jms:queue:<name>")
This first route will create a TCP/IP consumer thanks to a server socket (it is also possible to use a client socket thanks to property clientMode)
As we want to reuse the just created connection, it is important to initialize decoders but also encoders that will be used later thanks to a bean (see further). This bean will be responsible of sending data by using the Channel created in this first route (Netty Channel contains a pipeline for decoding / encoding messages before receiving from / sending to TCP/IP.
Now, we want to send back some data to the parter connected to the consumer (from) endpoint of the first route. Since we are not able to do it thanks to classical producer endpoint (to), we use a bean object :
from("jsm:queue:<name>").bean("myMessageService", "sendToTCP");
Here the bean code :
public class MessageService {
private Channel openedChannel;
public void sendToTCP(final Exchange exchange) {
// opened channel will use encoders before writing on the socket already
// created in the first route
openedChannel.writeAndFlush(exchange.getIn().getBody());
}
public void receiveFromTCP(final Exchange exchange) {
// record the channel created in the first route.
this.openedChannel = exchange.getProperty(NettyConstants.NETTY_CHANNEL, Channel.class);
}
}
Of course,
the same bean instance is used in the two routes, you need to use a registry to do so :
SimpleRegistry simpleRegistry = new SimpleRegistry();
simpleRegistry.put("myMessageService", new MessageService());
Since the bean is used in two different asynchronous routes, you will have to deal with some unexected situations, by for example protecting the access of openedChannel member, or dealing with unexpected deconnexion.
This post helped me a lot to find this solution :
how-to-send-a-response-back-over-a-established-tcp-connection-in-async-mode-usin
reuseChannel property documentation
After end of camel route, exchange's body and headers will back to requester as response.
Some AMQP enabled brokers like Microsoft Service Bus or ActiveMQ allow only one active producer or consumer per session. The Apache JMS Camel component seems not be able to handle this correctly, which result that JMS throws exceptions when processing InOut messages sent from e.g. Service Bus.
A small JMS test application with separate sessions for producer and consumer works nice. With using the same session, it run into the same problem.
Issue is rooted in the Spring JMS template, which is used as base for the Camel JMS implementation.
Does anybody know how to overcome that behavior?
You can define a 2nd JMS component and use that for the "other".
Or you can turn off any kind of connection pooling maybe.
If you use XML then you can define a 2nd jms component
<bean id="jms2" class="org.apache.camel.component.jms.JmsComponent"/>
How do you set the TTL for a message when using Java DSL?
I have something like this:
...
from ("timer:something?delay=3000&period=15000")
...
.to("{{some.property}}")
.end()
...
I want to set a time to live on the message being sent.
I ended up setting the JMSExpiration header field of the messages being created similar to the following
.setHeader("JMSExpiration", constant(System.currentTimeMillis() + 1000))
We are using Apache ActiveMQ 5.7.
I assume TTL means Time to Live.
In Camel this is component specific how they deal with this. Some components support this, and others do not.
You should check the documentation for the component you use, what it supports.
If you use JMS component then it has the timeToLive option as documented: http://camel.apache.org/jms
And mind about the problem with "client and server clock's can be out of sync". There is some details on the Camel JMS page. Some message brokers has ways to sync the clocks, such as Apache ActiveMQ with its timestamp plugin: http://activemq.apache.org/timestampplugin.html
First of all thanks to folks who are currently involved in the development of Camel, I am grateful for all the hard work they have put in.
I am looking for some design advice.
The architecture is something like this:
I have a bunch of Java classes which when instantiated are required to connect to each other and send messages using Apache Camel. The design constraints require me to create a framework such that all routing information, producers, consumers, endpoints etc should be a part of the camel-context.xml.
An individual should have the capability to modify such a file and completely change the existing route without having the Java code available to him.(The Java code would not be provided, only the compiled Jar would be)
For example in One setup,
Bean A ->Bean B->Bean C->file->email.
in another
Bean B->Bean A->Bean C->ftp->file->email
We have tried various approached, but if the originating bean is not implemented as a Java DSL, the messages rate is very high because camel constantly invokes Bean A in the first example and Bean B in the second(they being the source).
Bean A and Bean B originate messages and are event driven. In case the required event occurs, the beans send out a notification message.
My transformations are very simple and I do not require the power of Java DSL at all.
To summarize, I have the following questions:
1) Considering the above constraints, I do I ensure all routing information, including destination addresses, everything is a part of the camel context file?
2) Are there example I can look at for keeping the routing information completely independent of the java code?
3) How do I ensure Camel does not constantly invoke the originating bean?
4) Does Camel constantly invoke just the originating bean or any bean it sends & messages to irrespective of the position of the bean in the entire messaging queue?
I have run out of options trying various ways to set this up. Any help would be appreciated.
Read about hiding the middleware on the Camel wiki pages. This allows you to let clients use an interface to send/receive messages but totally unaware of Camel (no Camel API used at all).
Even better consider buying the Camel in Action book and read chapter 14 which talks about this.
http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
Save 41% on Manning books: Camel in Action or ActiveMQ in Action. Use code s2941. Expires 6th oct. http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
If you consider using ServiceMix of FuseESB, you might want to separate your routes in two parts.
First part would be the Event-driver bean that trigger the route. It could push messages to the ServiceNMR (see http://camel.apache.org/nmr.html).
The other part would be left to the framework users, using Spring DSL. It would just listen to message on the NMR (push by the other route) and do whatever they want with it.
Of course endpoint definition could be propertized using servicemix configuration service (see http://camel.apache.org/properties.html#Properties-UsingBlueprintpropertyplaceholderwithCamelroutes)
I am in the process of learning ActiveMQ and Camel, with the goal to create a little prototype system that works something like this:
(source: paulstovell.com)
(big)
When an order is placed in the Orders system, a message is sent out to any subscribers (a pub/sub system), and they can play their part in processing the order. The Orders, Shipping and Invoicing applications have their own ActiveMQ installations, so that if any of the three systems are offline, the others can continue to function. Something takes care of moving messages between the ActiveMQ installs.
Getting Apache Camel to move messages from one queue to another via routes is quite easy, if they are on the same ActiveMQ instance. So this works for managing the subscription queues.
The next challenge is pushing messages from one ActiveMQ instance to another, and it's the bit where I am not sure what to look at next.
Can Camel route between different ActiveMQ installations? (I can't figure out what the JMI endpoint URI would be if they are on different machines).
I understand ActiveMQ has store and forward capabilities. Is this what I would use to move messages between Orders and Shipping/Invoicing?
Or is this what Apache ServiceMix is meant to solve?
This is a pretty straightforward asynchronous, event-driven application that is well-suited for ActiveMQ and Camel.
Actually you do not move messages explicitly from one ActiveMQ instance to another. The way it works is using what's known as a network of brokers. In your case, you'd have three brokers: ActiveMQ-purple, ActiveMQ-green and ActiveMQ-blue. ActiveMQ-purple creates a uni-directional broker network with ActiveMQ-green and ActiveMQ-blue. This allows ActiveMQ-purple to store-and-forward messages to ActiveMQ-green and ActiveMQ-blue based on consumer demand.
The Orders app accepts orders on the orders queue on ActiveMQ-purple. The Orders app uses Camel to consume and process a message to determine if it is an invoicing message or a shipping message. Camel routes the messages to either the invoicing queue or the shipping queue on ActiveMQ-purple.
Consumer demand comes from the Invoicing app and the Shipping app. The Invoicing uses Camel to consume messages from the invoicing queue on ActiveMQ-green. The Shipping app uses Camel to consume messages from the shipping queue on ActiveMQ-blue. Because of the broker network and because of the consumer demand on the ActiveMQ-green.invoicing queue and the ActiveMQ-blue.shipping queue, messages will be forwarded from ActiveMQ-purple to the appropriate broker and queue. There is no need to explicitly route messages to specific broker.
I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if you have anymore.
Bruce
Hmmmm, I've only dabbled at best, and not for a fair while, but I'll try and offer something.
ActiveMQ can route between different installations and just uses standard URIs to my knowledge so I'm not sure what the problem is here. I would think that using TCP you'd be fine. Using ServiceMix (you mention it later) you'd just specify a connectionFactory & then provide the URI in that. This link shows some examples http://servicemix.apache.org/servicemix-jms-new-endpoints.html.
Camel has support for Durable Subscriber if that's what you were after (http://camel.apache.org/durable-subscriber.html)? This pattern will ensure that if the subscriber is offline when the message is ready, it will be held until the subscriber is back online. This is also supported by ServiceMix (see link given above and look for 'subscriptionDurable'.