I am working with ActiveMQ. I want to put gRPC calls as a message on ActiveMQ. As soon as consumer picks a message the gRPC in the message should execute.
gRPC calls take parameters so I want to understand how to send these parameters in the message body along with the method name/identifier. Is there any another way of achieving this which is followed already?
Example:
someResponse response = someStub.rpcMethodName(parameter); // grpc call
What I need is to store this statement in some format on ActiveMQ without calling the gRPC now. Then in the future when the consumer of ActiveMQ picks up the message containing this statement it should execute this gRPC call.
You can structure the gRPC call data in your message any way you want. You could use XML, JSON, ProtoBuf, etc. It's really up to however you want to do it. If all you really need are simple key/value pairs then you could just use JMS message properties to store the data you need.
I don't think using gRPC is particularly common, but it is common to use messages as a kind of "unit of work" to work with all kinds of remote resources (e.g. databases, REST services, microservices, etc.).
In any event, I would strongly recommend against using JMS ObjectMessage. ObjectMessage objects depend on Java serialization to marshal and unmarshal their object payload. This process is not only slow but generally considered unsafe because a malicious payload can exploit the host system. Lots of CVEs have been created for this. There are a number of other issues with using JMS ObjectMessage not related to security that you should read about as well.
Related
When developing inbound channel adapters, I couldn’t find any place that mentions the differences between AbstractMessageSource and MessageProducerSupport in Spring Integration. I’m asking this question in the context of reactive streams, so I’m actually looking at AbstractReactiveMessageSource, but I guess it doesn’t matter for my question. I also wonder whether MessageProducerSupport supports project reactor and doesn’t have an equivalent to AbstractReactiveMessageSource.
There is some documentation about these types of components: https://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/current/reference/html/overview.html#finding-class-names-for-java-and-dsl-configuration
The inbound message flow side has its own components, which are divided into polling and listening behaviors.
So, the MessageProducerSupport is for those protocols which provide a listening callback for us. So, we can hook up into that, build message and produce it into a channel provided by the MessageProducer. So, it is self-eventing component which really has everything to listen to the source system and produce messages from the callback. This type of channel adapters called event-driven and samples of them are JMS, AMQP, HTTP, IMAP, Kinesis etc.
From here it is wrong to try to compare the MessageProducerSupport with an AbstractMessageSource because the are not relevant. The one you should look into is a SourcePollingChannelAdapter. Exactly this one is that kind of flow beginning endpoint which is similar to MessageProducerSupport. With only the problem that it is based on a periodic scheduled task to request for messages in the provided MessageSource. This type of component is for those protocols which don't provide listening callback, e.g. local file system, (S)FTP, JDBC, MongoDb, POP3, S3 etc.
You probable would expect something similar to MessageSource for the MessageProducer level, but there is not that kind of layer because everything single event-driven protocol has its own specifics, therefore we cannot extract some common abstraction like in case of polling protocols.
If your source system provides for you a reactive Publisher, you don't need to look into a SourcePollingChannelAdapter and MessageSource. You just need a MessageProducerSupport and call its subscribeToPublisher(Publisher<? extends Message<?>> publisher) from the start() implementation.
There is no need in the reactive implementation for the polling since Publisher is not pollable by itself it is event-driven. Although it has its own back-pressure specifics which is out of MessageProducerSupport scope.
There is also some explanation in this section of the doc: https://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/current/reference/html/reactive-streams.html#source-polling-channel-adapter. And see a couple next paragraphs.
I have a small Java SE application, it´s practically a fat client sitting on top of a database. To further my Java skills, I decided to make a client-server application out of it. The server application communicates with the database and handles all kinds of lengthy operations, while the client application only receives the results, mostly ArrayLists of moderate length and primitives.
To this end, I started reading on RMI and did the Oracle tutorial, which I found surprisingly difficult to understand and even get to work.
Is there anything else I can use instead of RMI, without having to dive into JavaEE?
One way I would suggest would be to use JSON as the format for data exchange. You can use GSON to convert the data from Java objects to JSON and back. The transport could be done directly on the HTTP protocol using REST. You can use Jersey as a REST server/client or roll your own (since you don't want to use JEE, which Jersey is part of).
SIMON is as simple to use as RMI, but with fewer traps in the initial setup. It also has some advantages over RMI. Here is a simple hello-world example:
http://dev.root1.de/projects/simon/wiki/Sample_helloworld110
I take it RMI = Remote Method Invocation ...
You can have a look at XMLRPC, JSONRPC, JMS, or if you want to roll your own, use JSON to POST messages and convert the JSON back to a java object on the other side using GSON (from Google) or setup RabbitMQ and use AMQP to submit and receive messages if you don't want to handle the POSTing yourself, Spring AMQP makes it fairly easy to do this.
How do i get multiple pollers of same type to route messages to a single transformer .I don't mind having the messages queued before the transformer
Well, I think you just want to reuse a message flow for all your <int-mail:imap-idle-channel-adapter>s. It's just enough to configure them all to the same channel.
Actually there is no difference with classical OOP design, when you inject the same service to different actions, like MVC controller, or JMS listeners.
But here we do exactly the same, but inject a MessageChannel to send results of those entry point to it and don't think what's going on underneath.
Please, read more books about Enterprise Integration Patterns
I want to use apache CXF to build my client. Unfortunately, I do not see a way by which it allows me to dispatch a client dynamically based on the port and operation name. If there is a huge wsdl, JaxWsDynamicClientFactory would create classes for all services contained in it which is an overhead that I'd like to avoid.
I found a similar implementation in JAX-WS. Is there any api in CXF that would do the same?
CXF supports the JAX-WS Dispatch API, which is a low-level interface to SOAP.
That means you can create a Dispatch that represents a particular port-type on a service and then invoke the methods by building the message
// Set things up...
Service s = ...
Dispatch<DOMSource> dispatch =
s.createDispatch(portName, // << a QName!
DOMSource.class, Service.Mode.PAYLOAD);
// Construct the request message here
Node response = dispatch.invoke(new DOMSource(request)).getNode();
// Understand the response message here
Of course, that then means you've got to work with the DOM for the messages, which is highly annoying. I think that's the part of tooling that's really worthwhile.
For me JMS and ESB seem to be very related things and I'm trying to understand how exactly they are related.
I've seen a sentence that JMS can be used as a transport for ESB - then what else except the transport should be present in such an ESB? Is JMS a simple ESB or if not, then what it lacks from the real ESB?
JMS offers a set of APIs for messaging: put a message on a queue, someone else, sometime later, perhaps geographically far away takes the message off the queue and processes it. We have decoupled in time and location of the message provider and consumer. Even if the message consumer happens to be down for a time we can keep producing messages.
JMS also offers a publish/subscribe capability where the producer puts the message to a "topic" and any interested parties can subscribe to that topic, receiving messages as and when they are produced, but for the moment focus just on the queue capabilty.
We have decoupled some aspects of the relationship between provider and consumer. However some coupling remains. First, as things stand every message is processed in the same way. Suppose we want to introduce different kinds of processing for different kinds of messages:
if ( message.customer.type == Platinum )
do something special
Obviously we can write code like that, but an alternative would be to have a messaging system that can send different messages to different places we set up three queues:
Request Queue, the producer(s) puts their requests here
Platinum Queue, platinum consumer processing reads from here
Standard Queue, a standard consumer reads messages from here
And then all we need is a little bit of cleverness in the queue system itself to transfer then messsage from the Request Queue to the Platinum Queue or Standard Queue.
So this is a Content-Based Routing capability, and is something that an ESB provides. Note that the ESB uses the fundamental Queueing capabilities offered by JMS.
A second kind of couppling is that the consumer and producer must agree about the message format. In simple cases that's fine. But when you start to have many producers all putting message to the same queue you start to hit versioning problems. New message formats are introduced but you don't want to change all the existing providers.
Request Version 1 Queue Existing providers write here
Request Version 2 Queue New provider write here, New Consumer Reads here
And the ESB picks up the Version 1 Queue messages and transforms them into Version 2 messages and puts them onto the Version 2 queue.
Message transformation is another possible ESB capability.
Have a look at ESB products, see what they can do. As I work for IBM, I'm most familiar with WebSphere ESB
I would say ESB is like a facade into a number of protocals....JMS being one of them.
An addition to the above list is the latest Open Source ESB - UltraESB
JMS is not well suited for the integration of REST services, File systems, S/FTP, Email, Hessian, SOAP etc. which are better handled with an ESB that supports these types natively. For example, if you have a process that dumps a CSV file of 500MB at midnight, and you want another system to pickup the file, parse CSV and import into a database, this can easily be accomplished by an ESB - whereas a solution with just JMS will be bad. Similarly, integration of REST services, with load balancing/failover to multiple backend instances can be done better with an ESB supporting HTTP/S natively.
This Transformation does not happen automatically. You need to configure the mapping or write transformation service
Look at https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_SOA_Platform/4.2/html/SOA_ESB_Message_Transformation_Guide/ch02s03.html
Regards,
Raja Nagendra Kumar,
C.T.O
www.tejasoft.com
ESB offers integration with a lot of different protocols in addition to JMS.
Most use JMS behind the scenes to transfer, stor and move messages. One such solution OpenESB, uses XML format messages.
There are open source ESB which you could checkout -
OpenESB
Apache Camel
MuleESB
WSO2 ESB
JMS implementation like ActiveMQ come with Camel inbuilt into them.
JMS is a protocol for communicating with an underlying messaging layer. ESB operates at a higher level, offering integration with multiple technologies and protocols, one of which would be JMS, in a uniform way that makes management of complex flows much simpler.
There are JMS message brokers , that you can easily configure with ESB. https://docs.wso2.com/display/ESB470/JMS+Transport
JMS and ESB both provide a way of communication between different applications. But the context for JMS and ESB are different. JMS is for simple need. JMS is implemented by JMS Provider. It is Java specific.
Examples of JMS Providers are: Apache Active MQ, IBM MQ, HornetQ etc.
ESB is for complex need. ESB is a component in EAI providing communication facility to various applications. It is generic & not specific to Java. JMS is one of the supported protocols.
Examples of ESB provider are: MuleESB, Apache Camel, OpenESB
Use Case: It may be an overhead to use ESB, if all our communicating applications are in Java and are using the same message format. Here JMS may be sufficient.