Correlating messages on two Camel Routes - apache-camel

In my application I have a generic Camel Route such as the following
from("direct:something").to("direct:outgoing")
and then dynamically in my code I deploy another route:
from("direct:outgoing").process(processor)
When flowing from route 1 to route 2 a new Exchange will be created. Is there an idiomatic way to correlate both? Should I set EXCHANGE.Correlation_ID header on the first route before sending it out?

This should definitely all be processed on the one exchange. Run this test and you'll see the same camel Exchange, with the same properties, etc.
public class CamelExchangeTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final Processor showExchangeIdProcessor = new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
System.out.println(exchange.getExchangeId());
}
};
Main camelMain = new Main();
camelMain.addRouteBuilder(new RouteBuilder() {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("timer:foo?period=1s&repeatCount=1")
.log("excgabge created!")
.process(showExchangeIdProcessor)
.to("direct:outgoing")
;
from("direct:outgoing")
.log("outgoing!")
.process(showExchangeIdProcessor)
;
}
});
camelMain.run();
}
}
Output:
ID-MYPC-55760-1411129552791-0-2
ID-MYPC-55760-1411129552791-0-2
So something else is going on. When you say "direct:outgoing", do you mean exactly that or is it something different - a different component perhaps?
When you say the route is created dynamically, how exactly is that done, and when (and why?)

From the Camel doc:
Some EIP patterns will spin off a sub message, and in those cases, Camel will add a correlation id on the Exchange as a property with they key Exchange.CORRELATION_ID, which links back to the source Exchange. For example the Splitter, Multicast, Recipient List, and Wire Tap EIP does this.
Thus, Exchange.CORRELATION_ID is set by Camel and should not be set by your application. But feel free to set a custom header or property if you need to such as:
exchange.getIn().setProperty("myProperty", myIdentifier);

Related

Camel ProducerTemplate and ActiveMQ message and persistence issues

Issue:
I have multiple route sending messages to an ActiveMQ queue which later gets processed by a processor to save status information
The same message sending from ProducerTemplate to ActiveMQ queue somehow breakes the same code by not triggering logs on console, and saving status information to a randomly generated file name.
Desired Behavior:
Both sending method gets the messages processed the same way
Code Explanation:
On below codes the Save processor is the one producing the weird behavior where logs dont show up on console and writes to some random file, file name is basically the clientID from ActiveMQ
StartRoute calling the activemq:save works correctly
Code:
public class Save implements Processor {
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
try {
Map<String, Object> map = new HashMap<String, Object>() {};
map.put(".....", ".....");
map.put(".....", ".....");
map.put(".....", ".....");
map.put(".....", ".....");
ProducerTemplate template = exchange.getContext().createProducerTemplate();
String response = template.requestBodyAndHeaders("activemq:save", "Batch Job Started", map, String.class);
FluentProducerTemplate FluentTemplate = exchange.getContext().createFluentProducerTemplate();
String result = FluentTemplate
.withHeader(".....", ".....")
.withHeader(".....", ".....")
.withHeader(".....", ".....")
.withHeader(".....", ".....")
.withHeader(".....", ".....")
.to("activemq:save")
.request(String.class);
} catch (Exception e) {
.....
}
}
}
public class StartRoute extends RouteBuilder {
restConfiguration()
.component("servlet")
.enableCORS(true);
rest("/start").id("start")
.post("/{filename}")
.route()
.....
.process(new Save())
.wireTap(startBackgroundProcessRoute)
.to("activemq:save")
.endRest();
}
public class SaveRoute extends RouteBuilder {
from("activemq:save")
.log("started saving")
.process(new FormatText())
.to("file:///status");
}
This question came from my original problem described here:
Camel Multicast Route call order
Solution can be found also there:
Camel Multicast Route call order
However to satisfy this question:
It seems Camel have few bugs regarding producer templates and maybe ActiveMQ, this is my initial conclusion.
The Only way i was able to use ProducerTemplate without issue is to use the send function with Exchanges, send() sends the messages correctly to the ActiveMQ same way as the to() however for whatever reason the content was still not written to the file.
After I dropped the ActiveMQ between the routes, everything started to work consistently. So possible miss configuration on ActiveMQ component or possible another camel framework bug.
If anyone knows the exact answer i would be happy to hear / see the reason for this behavior.
Code example:
public class SaveProcessor implements Processor {
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
ProducerTemplate template = exchange.getContext().createProducerTemplate();
template.send(Utilities.trackBatchJobStatus, exchange);
/** NOTE
* DO NOT USE any other functions which are not working with EXCHANGES.
* Functions that uses body, header values and such are bugged
*/
}
}

Can we provide a processor before onFallbackViaNetwork() in camel-hystrix-eip

I'm using camel-hystrix-eip in my project, I want a processor before my fallback, but it's not working
from("direct:sample").id("id:direct:sample").process(requestProcessor)
.hystrix()
.to(endPoint)
.onFallbackViaNetwork()
.to(fallback_endPoint)
I want to alter my fallback_endpoint using a processor, but seems like after onFallbackViaNetwork() we have to immediately provide to().
please suggest if there any way to do so.
I tried something like below, but it's not working.
from("direct:sample").id("id:direct:sample").process(requestProcessor)
.hystrix()
.to(endPoint)
.onFallbackViaNetwork()
.process(fallbackProcessor)
.to(fallback_endPoint)
Actually, I'm using requestProcessor to override the actual endpoint, and in case of a fallback, fallback_endPoint is also getting overridden, is there any way to avoid this.
You can have a processor after onFallbackViaNetwork(). You can also use the toD EIP to send the message to a dynamic endpoint.
Based on your code, you could set a Header MyEndpoint which contains your new endpoint string, and then reference it using .toD("${header.MyEndpoint}"). Repeat this pattern whenever you need to set a dynamic endpoint.
For example:
from("direct:sample")
.process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
// do something
exchange.getIn().setHeader("EndpointHystrix", "mock:hystrix");
}
})
.hystrix()
.toD("${header.EndpointHystrix}")
.onFallbackViaNetwork()
.process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
// do something more
exchange.getIn().setHeader("EndpointFallback", "mock:fallback");
}
})
.toD("${header.EndpointFallback}")
.end()
.to("...");
I've tested this in Camel 2.20.0 and 2.21.0.

How to use Apache Camel exchange messages?

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.

Camel CXF asynchronous request and reply

I would like to set up a Camel CXF endpont, and have the SOAP response asynchronous to much of my Camel Route. The route will have a lot of processing steps, and I do not want to have the response generated at the very end.
An example endpoint:
<cxf:cxfEndpoint id="someEndpoint"
address="/Service"
serviceClass="com.SomeImpl" />
An example route:
public class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("cxf:bean:someEndpoint")
to("bean:processingStep1")
to("bean:replyToSOAP") // I would like to respond to cxf:cxfEndpoint here!
to("bean:processingStep2")
to("bean:processingStep3")
to("bean:processingStep4");
// The response to cxf:cxfEndpoint actually happens here.
}
}
I have tried many options in MyRouteBuilder to "fork" the process (i.e. bean:replyToSOAP):
.multicast().parallelProcessing()
In-memory Asynchronous messaging ("seda" and "vm")
I have NOT tried JMS. It could be overkill for what I want to do.
I can get the route steps to process in parallel, but all steps must be completed before the response is generated.
In addition to the answer Claus gives below, I'd like to add that the placement of wireTap is important. Using:
.wireTap("bean:replyToSOAP")
will not get the desired behavior. What will is:
public class MyRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("cxf:bean:someEndpoint")
to("bean:processingStep1")
.wireTap("direct:furtherProcessing")
to("bean:replyToSOAP") // respond to cxf:cxfEndpoint here
from("direct:furtherProcessing") // steps happen independantly of beann:replyToSOAP
to("bean:processingStep2")
to("bean:processingStep3")
to("bean:processingStep4");
}
}
There is the WireTap EIP which can spin of a copy of the message to be processed independently from the current route: http://camel.apache.org/wire-tap

Apache Camel routing to an interface (or rather adding listeners dynamically)

I am working on a simple use case that would allow clients to dynamically register for events from a JMS endpoint. My current implementation looks like this:
...
public void addListener(Event event, Listener listener){
try {
camelContext.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from(event.from()).bean(listener);
}
});
} catch (Exception exception) {
exception.printStackTrace();
}
}
...
event.from() above would identify the endpoint from which the message would be consumed ("activemq:topic:market.stocks.update.ibm") and listener would be an implementation of the Listener interface.
I had envisaged a typical invocation as:
notifications.addListener(updateEvent, new Listener(){
void listen(){
System.out.println("Hey! Something got updated");
}
});
Except, of course, none of the above works since the camel route expects to have a concrete bean as the recipient and hence camel context fails to start-up.
What is the recommended way of adding bean end points dynamically?
answered on camel-users forum...
http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Observer-Pattern-using-Camel-td4491726.html

Resources