I've just managed to run my first Camel route (from timer to a JMS queue):
context.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
public void configure() {
from("timer:foo?period=1s").setBody(body().
append("Message at ${date:now:yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss}")).to(
"jms:queue:activemq/queue/TestQueue");
}
});
However I just realized that the following JMS message is received:
nullMessage at ${date:now:yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss}
Is there something missing to enable the variable substitution so that I get the real date in the message ?
Thanks
The timer has a null body, so body().append() would do a null + whatever.
So instead of append, just set the body. And use the simple language, if you want the timestamp to be computed.
.setBody(simple("Message at ${date:now:yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss}"))
Related
Requisite disclaimer about being new to Camel--and, frankly, new to developing generally. I'd like to have a string generated as the output of some function be the source of my camel route which then gets written to some file. It's the first part that seems challenging: I have a string, how do I turn it into a message? I can't write it into a file nor can I use JMS. I feel like it should be easy and obvious, but I'm having a hard time finding a simple guide to help.
Some pseudo-code using the Java DSL:
def DesiredString() {return "MyString";}
// A camel route to be implemented elsewhere; I want something like:
class MyRoute() extends RouteBuilder {
source(DesiredString())
.to("file://C:/out/?fileName=MyFileFromString.txt");
}
I vaguely understand using the bean component, but I'm not sure that solves the problem: I can execute my method that generates the string, but how do I turn that into a message? The "vague" is doing a lot of work there: I could be missing something there.
Thanks!
Not sure if I understand your problem. There is a bit of confusion about what the String should be become: the route source or the message body.
However, I guess that you want to write the String returned by your method into a File through a Camel route.
If this is correct, I have to clarify first the route source. A Camel Route normally starts with
from(component:address)
So if you want to receive requests from remote via HTTP it could be
from("http4:localhost:8080")
This creates an HTTP server that listens on port 8080 for messages.
In your case I don't know if the method that returns the String is in the same application as the Camel route. If it is, you can use the Direct component for "method-like" calls in the same process.
from(direct:input)
.to("file:...");
input is a name you can freely choose. You can then route messages to this route from another Camel route or with a ProducerTemplate
ProducerTemplate template = camelContext.createProducerTemplate();
template.sendBody("direct:input", "This is my string");
The sendBody method takes the endpoint where to send the message and the message body. But there are much more variants of sendBody with different signatures depending on what you want to send it (headers etc).
If you want to dive into Camel get a copy of Camel in Action 2nd edition. It contains everything you need to know about Camel.
Example:Sending String(as a body content)to store in file using camel Java DSL:
CamelContext context = new DefaultCamelContext();
context.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
public void configure() {
from("timer:StringSentToFile?period=2000")
.setBody(simple(DesiredString()))
.to("file:file://C:/out/?fileName=MyFileFromString.txt&noop=true")
.log("completed route");
}
});
ProducerTemplate template = context.createProducerTemplate();
context.start();
I am newcomer in Apache Camel. Please have a look to my code bellow:
I have a service which exposed as cxf webservice:
interface CxfService{
public OutputType hello(InputType input);
}
This is my route:
from("cxf:/test?serviceClass=" + CxfService.class.getName())
.to("log:cxfLog1")
.recipientList(simple("direct:${header.operationName}"));
from("direct:hello")
.process(new Processor(){
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
InputType file = exchange.getIn().getBody(InputType.class);
exchange.getOut().setBody(new OutputType());
}
});
The code works as expected, it consume InputType and produce OutputType.
I want to borrow my body to do another stuffs, so i rewrite that like this:
from("cxf:/test?serviceClass=" + CxfService.class.getName())
.to("log:cxfLog1")
.recipientList(simple("direct:${header.operationName}"));
from("direct:hello")
.process(new Processor(){
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
InputType file = exchange.getIn().getBody(InputType.class);
exchange.getOut().setHeader("header.temporary", new OutputType());
}
})
.to("some endpoint")
.setBody(simple("${header.temporary}"));
This webservice consume InputType and produce nothing. What wrong with that?
In your second piece of code, when setting the header.temporary, you should change two things:
setHeader("temporary", new OutputType()) - the 'header' prefix isn't
needed - you're addressing headers directly via the method call.
Use getIn() instead of getOut(). The input will get copied to the
output. You may want to do some research into the procedure for
Camel building the out message for details - I'm not 100% sure of
this one.
Change
exchange.getOut().setHeader("header.temporary", new OutputType());
To
exchange.getIn().setHeader("temporary"), new OutputType());
.setHeader() is when you use the simple language. In 99% of the cases getIn() is sufficient.
I'm trying to use RabbitMQ with Camel. I am using Camel 2.14.1.
I want to open an fanout exchange on RabbitMQ and then later bind queues to it. This seems to work fine. However, everytime I create an Exchange, it is automatically bound to queue with a system name (a number). Can't I avoid that?
Here is a simple example which posts 100 messages to an Exchange. But they get delivered to an automatically created queue, I want to avoid this.
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception
{
final String testGUID = "xxxx";
from("timer://publish?repeatCount=100&period=10&fixedRate=true").process(new Processor()
//from("timer://publish?repeatCount=100&period=1&fixedRate=true").process(new Processor()
{
#Override
public void process(Exchange _exchange) throws Exception
{
String message = String.valueOf(_exchange.getProperty(Exchange.TIMER_COUNTER));
_exchange.getOut().setBody(message+testGUID);
}
})
.to("rabbitmq://localhost/exchange=logs1237?autoDelete=false&username=guest&password=guest&exchangeType=fanout");
}
Best regards,
Morten Knudsen
UPDATE:
It seems from looking at the source, that the triggering of the automatic queue happens if "queue" in RabbitMQEndPoint is not null. But "queue" is automatically assigned to "String.valueOf(UUID.randomUUID().toString().hashCode());" at construction.
If you don't want to bind the exchange with queue, you can setup the declare option to be false. BTW, declare option is new added since Camel 2.14.0.
As Bal has already described here add "declare=false" to your RabbitMQ URI. This should solve your problem.
Optionally, you can also use "skipQueueDeclare=true&skipQueueBind=true" this properties in your URI as well.
declare: If the option is true, camel declare the exchange and queue name and bind them together. If the option is false, camel won’t declare the exchange and queue name on the server.
skipQueueDeclare: If true the producer will not declare and bind a queue. This can be used for directing messages via an existing routing key.
skipQueueBind: If true the queue will not be bound to the exchange after declaring it
You can reach out all the properties you can use in Camel for RabbitMQ here.
From Camel 2.16.1 on, there's a new option for the rabbitmq component, skipQueueDeclare, which properly solves this issue.
I am using Camel for my messaging application. In my use case I have a producer (which is RabbitMQ here), and the Consumer is a bean.
from("rabbitmq://127.0.0.1:5672/exDemo?queue=testQueue&username=guest&password=guest&autoAck=false&durable=true&exchangeType=direct&autoDelete=false")
.throttle(100).timePeriodMillis(10000)
.process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
MyCustomConsumer.consume(exchange.getIn().getBody())
}
});
Apparently, when autoAck is false, acknowledgement is sent when the process() execution is finished (please correct me if I am wrong here)
Now I don't want to acknowledge when the process() execution is finished, I want to do it at a later stage. I have a BlockingQueue in my MyCustomConsumer where consume() is putting messages, and MyCustomConsumer has different mechanism to process them. I want to acknowledge message only when MyCustomConsumer finishes processing messages from BlockingQueue. How can I achieve this?
You can consider to use the camel AsyncProcessor API to call the callback done once you processing the message from BlockingQueue.
I bumped into the same issue.
The Camel RabbitMQConsumer.RabbitConsumer implementation does
consumer.getProcessor().process(exchange);
long deliveryTag = envelope.getDeliveryTag();
if (!consumer.endpoint.isAutoAck()) {
log.trace("Acknowledging receipt [delivery_tag={}]", deliveryTag);
channel.basicAck(deliveryTag, false);
}
So it's just expecting a synchronous processor.
If you bind this to a seda route for instance, the process method returns immediately and you're pretty much back to the autoAck situation.
My understanding is that we need to make our own RabbitMQ component to do something like
consumer.getAsyncProcessor().process(exchange, new AsynCallback() {
public void done(doneSync) {
if (!consumer.endpoint.isAutoAck()) {
long deliveryTag = envelope.getDeliveryTag();
log.trace("Acknowledging receipt [delivery_tag={}]", deliveryTag);
channel.basicAck(deliveryTag, false);
}
}
});
Even then, the semantics of the "doneSync" parameter is not clear to me. I think it's merely a marker to identify whether we're dealing with a real async processor or a synchronous processor that was automatically wrapped into an async one.
Maybe someone can validate or invalidate this solution?
Is there a lighter/faster/stronger alternative?
Or could this be suggested as the default implementation for the RabbitMQConsumer?
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);