Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <7471026.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:16:36 -0800 (PST)
From: taxingmonk <mkington@webhanger.com>
To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Message Group Overlaps and Load Balancing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Hi Guys,

I've got a use case where I want to load balance a given queue but
paritioned accross selectors.  I am convinced that somewhere between
composite destinations and message groups I can achieve what I'm after.

The use case is that I want to be able to send one message which is load
balanced to a series of receievers which I group together somehow but at the
same time I have multiple groups also receiving the same message.

So In my example I have message M1 and I have Consumers (C1,C2,C3) Group 1
and (C4,C5,C6) Group 2 and (C7,C8,C9) Group 3. I want message M1 to be
receieved by one member of Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3. 

I thought that might be achieveable by using composite destinations but I
didn't want to manage a seperate queue for each group so that I could drop a
message on the bus and have to arrive at all of them without specifying send
(a.group1, a.group2, a.group3), etc, etc.

Furthermore, what would be even better is if this could derived from the
message itself.  If we consider a numberline where I can specify a range
from say 1 to 10 and group 1 is interested in 1-3 and group 2 is interested
2-6 and group 3 is interested in 5-10. From there I would like to be able to
say this message is for range 1

It's almost like I want layer selector behaviour accross the top of the
message groups while load balancing :)  Ultimatly this allows me to spawn
more consumers if I start to realise that the processes that are handling a
particular range have a large data density, the key thing is that multiple
groups can return responses to the one message, ranging specifying
partitions of data, which may or may not overlap. This I fear may be a
bridge too far.

It should be noted that none of these messages is transactionally important,
nor do I need the total guarentee that two or more consumers in the same
group receieve the same message, although that shouldn't be the common case.

Any ideas?

Kind Regards,
Max
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Message-Group-Overlaps-and-Load-Balancing-tf2678713.html#a7471026
Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.