I have two web-service call in my fuse service. I need to implement retry when time out occurs in only one of the web service call.how can i achieve that in fuse.
A redelivery policy can be specified for an Exception Clause (onException) or an Error Handler. Both of them can be applied to either global (per RouteBuilder instance) or route scope. So you'll have to put your web service calls into two separate routes.
Related
I have appengine endpoint and trying to reduce latency on few first calls to newly created endpoint instance. Application is written in Java and endpoints are auto scaled.
To address this issue I configured idle instance, although even if instance is already created, first few calls routed to it consume some extra time. Following documentation I've implemented the custom servlet handling warm up requests and marked the EndpointsServlet as load on startup.
Inside the warm up servlet I've put code that initiates some commonly used services, load some data etc. Effect was almost impossible to notice.
After it I have implemented calls to methods exposed by the endpoint like that:
call("/_ah/api/teamly/v1/test/dummy")
It works for some cases (even most of them) and after calling few key methods instance is really ready to serve. The problem I'm facing now is that if I'm using auto scaling for some module I can't route the request to specific instance.
So the question is:
How should I properly warm up the endpoint instance to avoid load requests initiated from frontend.
You need to put a listener to /_ah/warmup and then make calls to any resources you want it to be warmed up. You can find detailed information at:
Configuring Warmup Requests to Improve Performance
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"/>
Does Camel provide anything out of the box which tells if it is able to connect all endpoints?
These endpoints could be MQ, webservice etc.
If not then I have to write a servlet which will send test request to all the endpoints. I will be using multicast or splitter for this implementation.
From my experience Camel will only provide warning logs if a from() endpoint is not available since it is constantly trying to read from them. Every other endpoint won't be accessed until the exchange tries to use that endpoint. If your goal is to test if various resources are alive I believe you would need to create your own testing program. I don't think this will be implemented as a feature because typically applications build in error handling if a resource is down and definte appropriate behaviors.
If we're talking about producers, then no. If your route is sending messages to an amq or http4 endpoint for instance, camel with not automatically send TCP-packets on these connections for monitoring purposes. A common way to handle failure of external endpoints is by using "circuit breakers". Take a look at https://camel.apache.org/load-balancer.html. A more robust alternative, imho, is Netflix's Hystrix.
If you have a polling consumer, say a from:ftp://.. then the polling consumer will poll messages every n-th millisecond, and you'll get an error if the connection is broken.
My idea is to use camel to decouple modules. In order to support scalability and failover, I am wondering if the following architecture is adviced?
I have two applications with Camel embedded AppCamel1 and AppCamel2. Then I have standalone camel nodes Camel1 and Camel2.
AppCamel1 would have a route with fail-over/load balancing to Camel1 and Camel2. This way, if Camel1 crashes for example, Camel2 is used for failover.
Camel1 and 2 would do a REST call with the http component for example. Also there would be a request-reply from AppCamel1 up to camel1 or 2.
Is it a valid scenario?
What should I use to interconnect the different Camel instances (AppCamel1 to Camel1 or 2)? (I would like to know if it's possible to avoid another component like a jms server in the middle)
Thank you!
Edited following Boday's answer
the REST calls are from Camel1/2. I'd like to interconnect AppCamel1/2 to Camel1/2 and see if I can avoid anything in between. I guess mina is a possibility or even http but in that case a AppCamel1 and AppCamel2 need to know Camel1/2 which is not so good.
This is also being discussed at the Camel mailing list, where there is also some pointers and suggestions
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/scalable-bus-with-multiple-Camel-instances-tp5606593p5606593.html
If you are trying to load balance HTTP requests to your AppCamel1/2, then you'd need a proxy server in between (apache mod_proxy, perlbal, etc). To load balance from AppCamel1/2 to Camel1/2, you can use Camel's load balancer or even JMS request/reply...
From AppCamel1/2 to Camel1/2, it sounds like you are using REST as the interface. If you need more complex communication between the instances, then I'd use JMS (via camel-activemq) for messaging and Hazelcast (via camel-hazelcast) for distributed caching/locking, etc.
If you use jms to communicate then you do not need a special load balancer. Just use one queue and let both Camel1/2 listen to the queue. Then they will automatically failover and load balance.
I would definetly go for a jms middleware. Activemq is the natural choice (camel is even considered a sub project of activemq). It is trivial to embedd amq along with your canel instances and cluster them. Activemq will then be able to handle both load balancing and failover for you.
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)