activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael André Pearce <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Object Serialisation Support
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:19:19 GMT
Agreed it does as an EAI pattern or flow, But I have to code/define into Camel's dsl, it does
JMS as much as our custom app code would it consumes the JMS api. 

What we propose here is just providing a clean way to define the JMS ObjectMessage internal
serialisation. If Java serialisation isn't your cup of tea. (Which for many reasons isn't
for us, and I'm sure it's similar for others)

> On 1 Jun 2017, at 16:58, Timothy Bish <> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2017 11:50 AM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
>> Really this is much more about how an ObjectMessage serializes the Object. As we
have C++ clients etc that obviously won't be able to understand Java serialized object.
>> We use Avro and a schema repo for our dto transfer over the wire, it's been a real
performance boost , and removed some core data issues, and really like to use it over the
JMS land.
>> One can argue that you could manually code this that you serialize the data manually
first and then just manually send a BytesMessage.
>> But I think taking some inspiration from other places where a serdes pattern is done
has really helped (Kafka), from a corporation user approach wiring some prebuilt serdes into
a factory is very easy, having duplicated code in many many apps leaves for issues, and implementation
>> The one downside of Kafka is it's lack of spec api, this is one big sell of artemis
as it's JMS compliant. Coding against JMS api for Java estate is a huge win, this is suggesting
taking some of the good bits :).
>> Does camel expose this as some sort of JMS API wrapper? I thought it was much more
an EAI solution.
>> Cheers
>> Mike
> Camel does JMS transport:
> Camel does AVRO:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Martyn Taylor <> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Timothy Bish <>
>>>>> On 06/01/2017 09:34 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Timothy Bish <>
>>>>>> On 06/01/2017 08:51 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>>>>> I get the use case for using JSON/XML, particularly for cross language
>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>> One way users get around this problem right now is just to serialize
>>>>>>> to/from XML/JSON at the client application level and just use
>>>>>>> TextMessages to send the data. I guess the idea here to remove
>>>>>>> complexity from the client application and into the client via
>>>>>>> pluggable serializer objects?  Removing the serizliation logic
out of
>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>> and into configuration.
>>>>>>> Providing I've understood this properly, it seems like a good
idea to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>   so +1.
>>>>>>> This problem has already been solved via frameworks like Apache
>>>>>> putting such complexity into the JMS client is solving a problem
>>>>>> already been solved and in much more flexible and configurable ways.
>>>>> Thanks Tim.  I am not a Camel expert in any shape or form, how much
>>>>> additional complexity/configuration would be required to do something
>>>>> similar with Camel?  My understanding of the proposal here is really
>>>>> to give control back to the user in terms of how their objects are
>>>>> serialized.  I'd expect this to be pretty light weight, just allow a
>>>>> to configure a class to do the serialization.
>>>> Camel offers conversions for a number of data formats
>>> Sure.   Though, one of the drivers (mentioned in this thread) for having
>>> control over the de/serialization process was for performance.  Converting
>>> to another format is going to obviously make this much worse.
>>>> as well as routing amongst numerous protocols, have a look at the
>>>> supported data formats page: and
>>>> the transports
>>>> This doesn't seem to be doing much more for the user than moving the work
>>>> they need to do around,
>>> Well, it abstracts the de/serialization process out of application code.
>>>> they still have to implement or configure the mechanics of the
>>>> transformation of the data format to the appropriate JMS message type and
>>>> back again.  Even if you bake in something to the client to handle some
>>>> common formats you will quickly find that it doesn't meet everyone's needs
>>>> and you'll end up implementing a poor mans Camel inside a JMS API
>>>> restricted client which seems less than ideal.
>>> I agree reinventing the wheel (badly) is not a good idea.  So, if Camel is
>>> able to provide us with a solution to the problem, that addresses the
>>> issues outlined here.  Then, we should certainly look into it.
>>> Cheers.
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think i might be getting the problem, use case you want to
go for,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> is to possible serialise to JSON or XML, because they're
supported well
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> other languages like c++, which won't read a java serialised
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> say for XML you generate objects via an XSD which by default
>>>>>>>> serialisable, so you cannot simply add Serializable to the
object, as
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> generated at build.
>>>>>>>> Is this the problem we need to solve? If so:
>>>>>>>> To get around this normally the tools that generate objects
>>>>>>>> serialisation from schema such as XSD do support a way to
toggle or
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>> the generation slightly for some common use cases.
>>>>>>>> In case of XSD, where using jaxb it would be to add something
like the
>>>>>>>> below to jaxb global bindings:
>>>>>>>> <xs:annotation>
>>>>>>>> <xs:appinfo>
>>>>>>>> <jaxb:globalBindings generateIsSetMethod="true">
>>>>>>>> <xjc:serializable uid="12343"/>
>>>>>>>> </jaxb:globalBindings>
>>>>>>>> </xs:appinfo>
>>>>>>>> </xs:annotation>
>>>>>>>> like wise if you are generating POJO's from a jsonschema
using for say
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> tool jsonschema2pojo  there is a toggle in the maven plugin
>>>>>>>> serializable
>>>>>>>> which you can switch to true.
>>>>>>>> Obviously if you hand crank your DTO Pojo's then it's a case
of simply
>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>> implement  Serializable to the class.
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 06:57, Michael André Pearce <
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> we could but then it wouldn't work via jms api. Typically
if using jms
>>>>>>>>> the only custom or specific broker object is the connection
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> rest you code to Jms.
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>> On 1 Jun 2017, at 04:10, Clebert Suconic <>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:47 PM Michael André Pearce
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jms api dictates class set in object message to be
>>>>>>>>>> We could make an extension. It could be an extra
message this
>>>>>>>>>> actually.
>>>>>>>>>> On 31 May 2017, at 22:37, Timothy Nodine <>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Should the interface require the underlying class
to be Serializable?
>>>>>>>>>> One use case might be to provide serialization to
classes that aren't
>>>>>>>>>>> natively serializable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael André Pearce wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> To help discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very very basic implementation just
to simulate the idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> CustomSerialisation
>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>> CustomSerialisation
>>>>>>>>> n.b. doesn’t fully compile is just pseudo impl, nor
doesn’t include
>>>>>>>>>> bits as discussed below like map/change type to a
byte message for
>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility, nor media type idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Tim Bish
>>>>>> twitter: @tabish121
>>>>>> blog:
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Bish
>>>> twitter: @tabish121
>>>> blog:
> -- 
> Tim Bish
> twitter: @tabish121
> blog:

View raw message