I currently have a process that needs to do some routing based on a message's exchange pattern. If a message is InOut, then the route ends and whatever the message contains gets sent back to the callback location. If the message is InOnly then the message gets routed somewhere else. The code is below:
...
.process(new Processor(){
public void process(Exchange e) throws Exception {
e.getIn().setHeader("ExchangePattern", e.getPattern().name());
}
})
.choice()
.when(header("ExchangePattern").isEqualTo("InOnly"))
.to(DESTINATION);
I know that in Camel 2.16 you can get the exchange pattern via the simple expression (exchange.getPattern.getName) but that's not available in 2.15. Is there a more elegant want do doing the routing or am I stuck with the ugly routing logic above?
Related
I am migration to Camel 3.20.1 from 2.20.1 and am facing some difficulties with my current workflow.
I have three RouteBuilders with routes which are called in hierarchical order like this.
RouteBuilderA
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
errorHandler(deadLetterChannel("direct:dead")
.maximumRedeliveries(2)
.redeliveryDelay(1000));
from("direct:A")
.to("direct:B");
}
RouteBuilderB
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("direct:B")
.to("direct:C");
}
RouteBuilderC
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
errorHandler(noErrorHandler())
from("direct:C")
.throwException(new RuntimeException("Something went wrong"))
.to("direct:end");
}
Current flow:
As you can see in the code, route in RouteBuilder3 will trigger exception which will be passed to RouteBuilder2. From there it will not be handled, as no error handler is defined for that route, and it will fail with stacktrace...
Desired flow:
What I need is to pass that exception to RouteBuilder1 and handle it there where (my global deadLetterChannel) error handler is defined.
One could say, just add errorHandler(noErrorHandler()) into RouteBuilderB, right. That is clear and it works, BUT I don't want that because...
Because, in that case redelivery will kick in and route message through routes in RouteBuilderB and RouteBuilderC. But, as I got exception in RouteBuilderC, I only want to route message through route where it failed, that is RouteBuilderC.
Background:
In old Camel version I somehow managed to make it work by using includeRoutes(injectedRouteBuilder), which is not available anymore. RouteBuilderC bean is injected into RouteBuilderB, which is injected in RouteBuilderA.
Question:
Does anybody knows how to solve that? I cannot find a way to make this work. I tried a lot of things, including getCamelContext().addRoutes(injectedRouteBuilder);.
*p.s. I am aware of recommendation to use inheritance for RouteBuilders, but in my case this is not an option. I need to pass it to RouteBuilder1 as only that one knows to which error queue, message needs to be send. *
I'm trying to send a message from an Activiti Camel task to an ActiveMQ queue, which should resume the activity when it is received by Camel. As I understand it, when the message is received from the queue lacks the properties that would enable it to be identified by Camel in order to be routed to the correct activity task.
As such a Business key is Null Exception is raised and the route fails.
from("activiti:SampleProcess:myCamelTask")
.to("activemq:queue:myQueue");
As expected, if I hardcode either the PROCESS_ID_PROPERTY or the PROCESS_KEY_PROPERTY in the receiving route, the message is routed correctly (when the ID matches).
from("activemq:queue:myQueue")
.setBody(constant("test body"))
.setProperty(PROCESS_ID_PROPERTY, constant("50"))
// .setProperty(PROCESS_KEY_PROPERTY, constant("CUSTOM-KEY"))
.to("activiti:SampleProcess:receiveAsyncPing");
How can I get either property in the receiving route so I can set them accordingly?
Or is there a more recommended way to approach this?
A good question.
The way I handled this is to inject the PROCESS_KEY within the route using the setProperty() command:
See below where I set the process key (business key) to "bar":
from(startProcessEndpoint)
.log(LoggingLevel.INFO, logMsg3)
.setProperty("PROCESS_KEY_PROPERTY",foo)
.setBody(constant("bar"))
.to("activiti:testCamelTask:receive")
Now, if you dont want to use a constant, then you have access to the exchange object within the route and can use an Expression as shown below:
Expression foo = new Expression() {
#Override
public <T> T evaluate(Exchange exchange, Class<T> aClass) {
return (T) "foo";
}
};
Hope this helps,
Greg
For example:
from("direct:test")
.multicast()
.to("direct:req1","direct:req2");
from("direct:req1")
.to(cxf:bean:endpoint1)
.process("response1");
from("direct:req2")
.process("requestProcessor2")
.to(cxf:bean:endpoint2)
.process(response2);
I am new to apache camel, i just wanna know is there any way to use the response which i get from the endpoint1 in "requestProcessor2" .
You could do something like this
from("direct:test")
.setProperty("test.body", body())
.to(cxf:bean:endpoint1)
.setProperty("endpoint1.body", body())
.process("response1")
.setBody(exchangeProperty("test.body"))
.to("direct:req2")
from("direct:req2")
.process("requestProcessor2")
.to(cxf:bean:endpoint2)
.process(response2);
You save the original body in an property and also the body from endpoint1. You then send the exchange to direct:req2 with the original body in the exhcnage body and the body form endpoint1 in a property which you then can access (in you processor or else where).
To access the the property in your processor:
public void process(final Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
Object body = exchange.getProperty("endpoint1.body");
}
You question already has the answer , use and you can get the property from the exchange whichever route you want. Also consider removing the property at the final route.
Hope this doesn't sound ridiculous, but how can I discard a message in Camel on purpose?
Until now, I sent them to the Log-Component, but meanwhile I don't even want to log the withdrawal.
Is there a /dev/null Endpoint in Camel?
You can use the message filter eip to filter out unwanted messages.
http://camel.apache.org/message-filter
There is no dev/null, component.
Also there is a < stop /> you can use in the route, and when a message hit that, it will stop continue routing.
And the closest we got on a dev/null, is to route to a log, where you set logLeve=OFF as option.
With credit to my colleague (code name: cayha)...
You can use the Stub Component as a camel endpoint that is equivalent to /dev/null.
e.g.
activemq:route?abc=xyz
becomes
stub:activemq:route?abc=xyz
Although I am not aware of the inner workings of this component (and if there are dangers for memory leaks, etc), it works for me and I can see no drawbacks in doing it this way.
one can put uri/mock-uri to the config using property component
<camelContext ...>
<propertyPlaceholder id="properties" location="ref:myProperties"/>
</camelContext>
// properties
cool.end=mock:result
# cool.end=result
// route
from("direct:start").to("properties:{{cool.end}}");
I'm a little late to the party but you can set a flag on the exchange and use that flag to skip only that message (by calling stop) if it doesn't meet your conditions.
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from()
.process(new Processor() {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
exchange.setProperty("skip", false);
byte[] messageBytes = exchange.getIn().getBody(byte[].class);
if (<shouldNotSkip>) {
} else { //skip
exchange.setProperty("skip", true);
}
}
}).choice()
.when(exchangeProperty("skip").isEqualTo(true))
.stop()
.otherwise()
.to();
}
I am using activemq route and needs to send reply in normal cases, so exchange pattern is InOut. When I configure a filter in the route I find that even it does not pass message to next step, the callback is executed(sending reply), just same as the behavior when calling stop(). And it will send the same message back to reply queue, which is not desirable.
What I do is to change the exchange pattern to InOnly conditionally and stop if I want to filter out the message, so reply is not sent. MAIN_ENDPOINT is a direct:main endpoint I defined to include normal business logic.
from("activemq:queue:myqueue" + "?replyToSameDestinationAllowed=true")
.log(LoggingLevel.INFO, "Correlation id is: ${header.JMSCorrelationID}; will ignore if not null")
.choice()
.when(simple("${header.JMSCorrelationID} == null"))
.to(MAIN_ENDPOINT)
.endChoice()
.otherwise()
.setExchangePattern(ExchangePattern.InOnly)
.stop()
.endChoice()
.end();
Note that this message is also consumed and not in the queue anymore. If you want to preserve the message in the queue(not consuming it), you may just stop() or just filter() so the callback(sending reply which is the original message) works, putting the message back to the queue.
Using only filter() would be much simpler:
from("activemq:queue:myqueue" + "?replyToSameDestinationAllowed=true")
.log(LoggingLevel.INFO, "Correlation id is: ${header.JMSCorrelationID}; will ignore if not null")
.filter(simple("${header.JMSCorrelationID} == null"))
.to(MAIN_ENDPOINT);
I would like to process both request and response messages at the end of my route. However, I do not see a way how to access the original request message.
I have the terrible feeling I am struggling with some basic concept.
Here is a simple example route in DSL to outline my problem (streamCaching is enabled for the whole context):
from("activemq:queue:myQueue")
.to("log:" + getClass().getName() + "?showOut=true")
.to("http://localhost:8080/someBackend")
.log("Now in.Body returns this: ${in.body} and out.Body this: ${out.body}")
.to("log:" + getClass().getName() + "?showOut=true");
Here is an according excerpt from my logs (line-breaks edited for better reading). As one can see, the original SOAP message is lost once the http server replied, and the SOAP response object is stored in the inBody of the message.
2012-09-25 17:28:08,312 local.bar.foo.MyRouteBuilder INFO -
Exchange[ExchangePattern:InOut, BodyType:byte[],
Body:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><env:Header /><env:Body><urn:someRequest xmlns:urn="http://foo.bar.local/ns"></urn:someRequest></env:Body></env:Envelope>,
Out: null]
2012-09-25 17:28:08,398 org.apache.camel.component.http.HttpProducer DEBUG -
Executing http POST method: http://localhost:8080/someBackend
2012-09-25 17:28:09,389 org.apache.camel.component.http.HttpProducer DEBUG -
Http responseCode: 200
2012-09-25 17:28:09,392 route2 INFO -
Now in.Body returns this: <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"><soap:Body><ns2:someResponse xmlns:ns2="http://foo.bar.local/ns"</ns2:someResponse></soap:Body></soap:Envelope>
and out.Body this:
2012-09-25 17:28:09,392 local.bar.foo.MyRouteBuilder INFO -
Exchange[ExchangePattern:InOut,
BodyType:org.apache.camel.converter.stream.InputStreamCache,
Body:[Body is instance of org.apache.camel.StreamCache],
Out: null]
I would have expected to have in.body and out.body be preserved across the whole route?
Alternative solutions I am considering:
Make use of the Correlation Identifier pattern to correlate both request and reply. But would this preserve the message bodies as well? Also, my request/reply messages do not have unique identifiers for correlation.
Write a custom bean, which performs the call to the http backend, processing both request and reply objects (but this is basically a no-Camel solution, reinventing the wheel and hence not preferred)
Already failed approaches:
I tried to access the original request message using a Processor like this at the end of my route, with no success:
process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
Message originalInMessage = exchange.getUnitOfWork().getOriginalInMessage();
logger.debug(originalInMessage.getBody(String.class));
logger.debug(exchange.getIn().getBody(String.class));
}
});
Thanks for any help
Simply store the original body of the in message in a header or a property and retrieve it at the end:
from("activemq:queue:myQueue")
.setProperty("origInBody", body())
.to("http://localhost:8080/someBackend")
After the http call you can then access the property origInBody.
First, this article shows very well how in and out works in camel: http://camel.apache.org/using-getin-or-getout-methods-on-exchange.html
Typically, the out message is not always used, but rather copied from the in-message in each step.
In your case, where you want the original message to stay around til the end of the route, you could go ahead with the Enrichment EIP. http://camel.apache.org/content-enricher.html
Your route would be something like this:
public class MyAggregationStrategy implements AggregationStrategy {
public Exchange aggregate(Exchange orig, Exchange httpExchange){
// if you want to check something with the Http request, you better do that here
if( httpExchange is not correct in some way )
throw new RuntimeException("Something went wrong");
return orig;
}
}
AggregationStrategy aggStrategy = new MyAggregationStrategy();
from("activemq:queue:myQueue")
.enrich("http://localhost:8080/someBackend",aggStrategy)
.//keep processing the original request here if you like, in the "in" message
One of the biggest problem of camel, is the ease to misuse it. The best way to use it correctly is to think in terms of EIP : one of the main goals of camel, is to implement EIP in its DSL.
Here is a list of EIP
Now think about it. You want the request and the response at the end, for what use ? Logging, Aggregation, ... ? For logging, a correlationId should suffice, so I presume you need it to create a response, based on both request and the proxied-response. If that's what you want, you could do something like
from("direct:receiveRequest")
.enrich("direct:proxyResponse", new RequestAndResponseAggregationStrategy())
You will have the opportunity to merge your Request (in oldExchange) and your Response (in newExchange).
With all the due respect I have for Christian Schneider, I do think the idea of putting the request in a property that could be reused later is a bad design. By doing it, you create side-effect between your routes. If your route is a subroute for another, you'll maybe erase their property. If you store it to put it back later, maybe you should do something like
from("direct:receiveRequest")
.enrich("direct:subRouteToIgnoreResponse", AggregationStrategies.useOriginal())
A really really bad design that I have done too many time myself is to do :
from("direct:receiveRequest")
.to("direct:subroute")
from("direct:subroute")
.setProperty("originalBody", body())
.to("direct:handling")
.transform(property("originalBody")
This will lead to "properties/headers hell", and to routes that are just a successive call of processors.
And if you can't think of a solution of your problem with EIP, you should maybe use camel only to access their components. For example, something like :
from("http://api.com/services")
.to(new SomeNotTranslatableToEIPProcessor())
.to("ftp://destination")
But don't forget that those components has their own goals : creating a common abstraction between similar behaviour (e.g, time based polling consumer). If you have a very specific need, trying to bend a camel component to this specific need can lead to huge chunk of code not easily maintainable.
Don't let Camel become your Golden Hammer anti-pattern
I often use an aggregation strategy, which preserves the old exchange and puts the result of the enrich into a header:
import org.apache.camel.Exchange;
import org.apache.camel.processor.aggregate.AggregationStrategy;
public class SetBodyToHeaderAggregationStrategy implements AggregationStrategy {
private String headerName = "newBody";
public Exchange aggregate(Exchange oldExchange, Exchange newExchange) {
oldExchange.getIn().setHeader(headerName, newExchange.getIn().getBody());
return oldExchange;
}
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
public void setHeaderName(String headerName) {
this.headerName = headerName;
}
}
Now you can use it like this:
<enrich strategyRef="setBodyToHeaderAggregationStrategy">
<constant>dosomething</constant>
</enrich>
<log loggingLevel="INFO" message="Result body from enrich: ${header.newBody}. Original body: ${body}" loggerRef="log"/>