cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Introducing a new Reliable JMS CXF Transport
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:17 GMT
Yes request / response correlation is definately a place where we 
currently loose message when the client goes down.

I think this is o big issue though as you typically only use request 
response when you wait for the response. So normally you will even want 
the responses to be lost when the client goes down. In the one way case 
we should not loose messages as we can also use transactions.

Still your JMS transport my be interesting. When doing the refactoring 
to spring jms templates and message listener I also thought about making 
the transport more asynchronous but never really did it.
So I would like to compare your implementation with the current one in cxf.

I would not like to have both though. If your transport is more suitable 
we should throw the other away. In any case we should only have one JMS 
transport.

Christian


Am 08.07.2011 14:39, schrieb Florent BENOIT:
>     Hi,
>
> One example about the "reliable" stuff is that we should include 
> "recovery".
> For example the correlation map used to match JMS replies is stored in 
> memory [1]
> 341     Exchange exchange = correlationMap.remove(correlationId);
> 342     if (exchange == null) {
> 343     LOG.log(Level.WARNING, "Could not correlate message with 
> correlationId " + correlationId);
> 344     return;
> 345     }
>
>
> So, if the JVM of the client is restarted, we will loose any replies 
> as we won't know how to match the reply.
> Also, there is no JTA used with the current JMS transport. It means 
> that we can loose data or to get some messages twice or so one.
>
> So even by using ActiveMQ with the messages being stored on the disk, 
> this won't work after a restart.
>
> [1] :
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/cxf/trunk/rt/transports/jms/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/transport/jms/JMSConduit.java?view=markup

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Florent
>
> On 07/08/2011 02:25 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> I'm confused. If you use AMQ configured for reliable storage on disk,
>> how do you lose things with the existing CXF transport?
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Florent 
>> BENOIT<Florent.Benoit@ow2.org>  wrote:
>>>     Hi CXF guys,
>>>
>>> I would like to introduce a new CXF transport that we've developed 
>>> and that
>>> could be contributed back to the CXF community. It is called 
>>> "Reliable JMS
>>> transport"
>>>
>>> When this transport has been designed, the goal was to have a reliable
>>> transport that we could called "Enterprise Transport" as we wanted 
>>> to use
>>> transactions and JMS by using containers like Java EE EJB or Spring 
>>> MDP (we
>>> support both). We don't want to loose any requests or answers and we 
>>> want to
>>> avoid waiting threads. This transport has not been designed from 
>>> scratch as
>>> it is using the JMS layer and share some classes with the current 
>>> CXF JMS
>>> transport but there are some differences between them. But we couldn't
>>> change the current transport as the design is not the same.
>>>
>>> First, let me give you details about this transport and why it's 
>>> different
>>> from the current JMS CXF transport.
>>>
>>> The current CXF JMS transport is not reliable. For example, if you 
>>> restart a
>>> client or a server you may loose some requests/answers. This is 
>>> because the
>>> mechanism that is used is keeping data in memory. So after a JVM 
>>> crash, all
>>> the data are lost.
>>> Also, for this new transport, we wanted to guarantee the delivery so 
>>> it is
>>> using transactions. (A transaction manager is then required).
>>> As said before, we wanted to avoid the use of threads waiting for an 
>>> answer.
>>> If there are 100 requests, we don't want 100 threads waiting their 
>>> answer.
>>> This is because we can use either EJB MDB or Spring MDP to handle the
>>> answer. In this way, resources are allocated only if an answer is 
>>> handled
>>> and not during all the waiting time. So the number of threads is
>>> dramatically reduced. Also by relying on EJB MDB or Spring MDP we're 
>>> based
>>> on existing patterns.
>>>
>>> Here is a link to the documentation of this transport and pictures 
>>> that are
>>> illustrating this solution :
>>> http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF
>>> This illustrates how the
>>>
>>> And the errors handling that is working with all kind of JVM crash :
>>> http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/download/Main/ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF/cxf-reliablejms-execution-flow-simple-failure-english.png

>>>
>>>
>>> There are integration tests included in this transport that are 
>>> launched
>>> through our continous integration tool on http://bamboo.ow2.org
>>> For now, they're using JOnAS as Java EE server as we need a JTA 
>>> manager and
>>> we test both EJB MDB and Spring MDP providers.
>>>
>>> To sum up, is there an interest in CXF to integrate this transport ? 
>>> What
>>> kind of changes need to be done, etc.
>>> Also I hope to get some feedback about this protocol.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Florent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>


-- 
--
Christian Schneider
http://www.liquid-reality.de

Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com


Mime
View raw message