In the Google Cast Chrome Sender API, there are several methods on Media for manipulating the queue, such as as queueAppendItem. However, there does not appear to be a way to get what is currently in the queue. There is Media.items, but it contains only the next three queue items, not the entire queue. The documentation does not mention that, but it is what I observed in practice.
The Queueing topic in the Android Sender API documentation mentions that the Android version does not keep the entire queue in memory because the queue might be large. That makes sense, and I could see why the Chrome Sender API would only track the next 3 queue items. But at least the Android version exposes getItemIds and getItemAtIndex. I have not found an equivalent of those in the Chrome Sender API.
I found an unanswered question about receiving a callback on queue change, but even getters to inspect the queue would be fine for me.
How can I reconstruct the full queue with the Chrome Sender API?
Related
Recently I am trying to use MassTransit in our microservice ecosystem.
According to MassTransit vocabulary and from documents my understanding is :
Publish: Sends a message to 1 or many subscribers (Pub/Sub Pattern) to propagate the message.
Send: Used to send messages in fire and forget fashion like publish, but instead It is just used for one receiver. The main difference with Publish is that in Send if your destination didn't receive a message, it would return an exception.
Requests: uses request/reply pattern to just send a message and get a response in a different channel to be able to get response value from the receiver.
Now, my question is according to the Microservice concept, to follow the event-driven design, we use Publish to propagate messages(Events) to the entire ecosystem. but what is exactly the usage (use case) of Send here? Just to get an exception if the receiver doesn't exist?
My next question is that is it a good approach to use Publish, Send and Requests in a Microservices ecosystem at the same time? like publish for propagation events, Send for command (fire and forget), and Requests for getting responses from the destination.
----- Update
I also found here which Chris Patterson clear lots of things. It also helps me a lot.
Your question is not related to MassTransit. MassTransit implements well-known messaging patterns thoughtfully described on popular resources such as Enterprise Integration Patterns
As Eben wrote in his answer, the decision of what pattern to use is driven by intent. There are also technical differences in the message delivery mechanics for each pattern.
Send is for commands, you tell some other service to do something. You do not wait for a reply (fire and forget), although you might get a confirmation of the action success or failure by other means (an event, for example).
It is an implementation of the point-to-point channel, where you also can implement competing consumers to scale the processing, but those will be instances of the same service.
With MassTransit using RabbitMQ it's done by publishing messages to the endpoint exchange rather than to the message type exchange, so no other endpoints will get the message even though they can consume it.
Publish is for events. It's a broadcast type of delivery or fan-out. You might be publishing events to which no one is listening, so you don't really know who will be consuming them. You also don't expect any response.
It is an implementation of the publish-subscribe channel.
MassTransit with RabbitMQ creates exchanges for each message type published and publishes messages to those exchanges. Consumers create bindings between their endpoint exchanges and message exchanges, so each consumer service (different apps) will get those in their independent queues.
Request-response can be used for both commands that need to be confirmed, or for queries.
It is an implementation of the request-reply message pattern.
MassTransit has nice diagrams in the docs explaining the mechanics for RabbitMQ.
Those messaging patterns are frequently used in a complex distributed system in different combinations and variations.
The difference between Send and Publish has to do with intent.
As you stated, Send is for commands and Publish is for events. I worked on a large enterprise system once running on webMethods as the integration engine/service bus and only events were used. I can tell you that it was less than ideal. If the distinction had been there between commands and events it would've made a lot more sense to more people. Anyway, technically one needs a message enqueued and on that level it doesn't matter, which is why a queueing mechanism typically would not care about such semantics.
To illustrate this with a silly example: Facebook places and Event on my timeline that one of my friends is having a birthday on a particular day. I can respond directly (send a message) or I could publish a message on my timeline and hope my friend sees it. Another silly example: You send an e-mail to PersonA and CC 4 others asking "Please produce report ABC". PersonA would be expected to produce the report or arrange for it to be done. If that same e-mail went to all five people as the recipient (no CC) then who gets to do it? I know, even for Publish one could have a 1-1 recipient/topic but what if another endpoint subscribed? What would that mean?
So the sender is responsible, still configurable as subscriptions are, to determine where to Send the message to. For my own service bus I use an implementation of an IMessageRouteProvider interface. A practical example in a system I once developed was where e-mails received had to have their body converted to an image for a content store (IBM FileNet P8 if memory serves). For reasons I will not go into the systems were stopped each night at 20h00 and restarted at 6h00 in the morning. This led to a backlog of usually around 8000 e-mails that had to be converted. The conversion endpoint would process a conversion in about 2 seconds but that still takes a while to work through. In the meantime the web front-end folks could request PDF files for conversion to paged TIFF files. Now, these ended up at the end of the queue and they would have to wait hours for that to come back. The solution was to implement another conversion endpoint, with its own queue, and have the web front-end configured to send the same message type, e.g. ConvertDocumentCommand to that "priority" queue for processing. Pretty easy to do. Now, if that had been a publish how would I do that split? The same event going to 2 different endpoints under different circumstances? Well, you could have another subscription store for your system but now you'd need to maintain both. There could be another answer such as coding this logic into the send bit but that is a design choice and would require coding changes.
In my own Shuttle.Esb service bus I only have Send and Publish. For request/response both the sender and receiver have an inbox and a request would be sent (Send) to the receiver and it in turn could reply (also a Send but uses the sender's URI).
Is it possible to keep a history of messages (with message content would be perfect) that have already been retrieved and are no longer on a queue?
In the application I can see when the sender attempts to put the message in the queue and when the receiver attempts to pick the messages up, but I'd like to see when the message really arrived into the queue and when the messages were really received.
Does MQ Explorer have this function? How would I use it?
What you are looking for is a message tracking/auditing software for IBM MQ. You can find a list of what is available here.
It is possible to use an API exit to make copies of messages in a queue or to audit both PUT and GET operations.
It is also possible to put messages to a topic, then create as many administrative subscriptions to destination queues as required. Something can then GET and log messages from one of those destination queues. The problem with this is that MQ changes the message ID between publication and consumption whereas in a queue it remains static.
There is no native MQ function to capture messages. It's possible to use linear logs and later scrape the logs but these do not necessarily capture all messages due to optimization. (A message PUT to a waiting getter outside of syncpoint for example.) However there is at least one commercial product to scrape linear transaction logs to audit message activity.
The philosophy of MQ in general is that it is the delivery mechanism and deals with envelope data to route and deliver but does not deal with payload data. WAS, IIB and other broker/transformation engines are where IBM has put all of the functions that deal with message payloads.
we are looking at socket io implementation for a chat application.
Finding acknowledgement support to handle missing messages while broadcast we are looking at acknowledgement support.
as per documentation socket io does not have support for callbacks in broadcast / rooms.
e.g. in "Room 1" we send broadcast message to all sockets within that room. how we check without call back that some users/sockets missed the message. and how we will handle that in system.
below code does not work.
io.sockets.in(data.room).emit('message', data, function(responseData){
console.log(responseData);
});
according to below issue
https://github.com/socketio/socket.io-redis/issues/30
Callbacks are not supported when broadcasting.
what are the other methods to handle this scenario.
In order to solve your problem, the messages for a room need to be persisted somewhere, and then re-sent to individual clients as needed.
The most obvious place to store messages is server-side, in a datastore (e.g. Redis). Store each conversation effectively as a list of events, appending new events as they happen.
A simple scheme works as follows:
Each broadcast message has a UUID attached to it. When the server handles a new message, it appends the message to the list for that 'room'.
When a client connects/re-connects, it sends a message (e.g. 'LAST_MESSAGE_RECEIVED') indicating the UUID of the last message it received.
When the server receives one of these 'LAST_MESSAGE_RECEIVED' messages, it checks if that is the latest message for the room, and if not, it emits a message just to that individual socket with an array of the missed messages. The client is now back up-to-date.
Alternative: if you don't need to keep a history after a conversation ends, you could be clever and use the fact that other clients are already storing the messages, and ask the clients to re-send messages in a peer-to-peer kind of way. This avoids you needing to have your own server-side datastore.
I have seen a lot of examples on the internet of chats using web sockets and RabbitMQ (https://github.com/videlalvaro/rabbitmq-chat), however I do not understand why it is need it a message queue for a chat application.
Why it is not ok to send the message from the browser via web sockets to the server and then the server to broadcast that message to the rest of active browsers using again web sockets with broadcast method? (maybe I am missing something)
Pseudo code examples (using socket.io):
// client (browser)
socket.emit("message","my great message that will be received by all"
// server (any server can be, but let's just say that it is also written in JavaScript
socket.on("message", function(msg) {
socket.broadcast.emit(data);
});
// the rest of the browsers
socket.on("message", function(msg) {
// display on the screen the message
});
i don't think RabbitMQ should be used for a chat room, personally. at least, not in the "chat" or "room" part of the application.
unless your chat rooms don't care about history at all - and i think most do care about that - a message queue like RMQ doesn't make much sense.
you would be better off storing the message in a database and keeping a marker for each user to say what message they last saw.
now, you may end up needing something like RMQ to facilitate the process of the chat application. you can offload process from the web servers, for example, and push all messages through RMQ to a back-end service that updates the database and cache layers, for example.
this would allow you to scale the front-end web servers much faster, and support more users per web server. and that sounds like a good use of RMQ, but is not specific to chat apps. it's just good practice for scaling web apps / systems.
the key, in my experience, is that RMQ is not responsible for delivery of the messages to the users / chat rooms. that happens through websockets or similar technologies that are designed to be used per user.
Simple answer ...
For a simple chat app you don't need a queue (e.g. signalr would do exactly this without the queue).
Typically though real world applications are not just "a simple chat app", the queue might represent the current state of the room for new users joining perhaps, so the server knows what list of messages to serve up when that happens.
Also it's worth noting that message queues are often implemented when you want reliable messaging (e.g. Service bus) to ensure that all messages definitely get to where they should go even if the first attempt fails. So it's likely that the queue is included in many examples as a default primer in to later problem solving.
I may be late for the answer as the messaging domain changed rapidly in last few years. Applications like WhatsApp do not store messages in their database, and also provide E2E encryption.
Coming to RabbitMQ, they support MQTT protocol which is ideal for low latency high scalability applications. Thus using such queuing services offload the heavy work from your server and provide features like scalability and security.
uhmm I didn't understand exactly for are you looking for...
but In RabbiMQ you always publish a messages to an exchange and consume the message using a queue.
to "broadcast that message" you need to consume it.
hope it helps
So our team has recently implemented torquebox into our jruby on rails applications. The purpose of this was to be able to receive queue/topic messages from an outside source which is streaming live data.
We have setup our queues/topics and they are receiving the messages without an issue. The next step we want to take is to get these messages on the browser.
So we started to look into leveraging the power of stomp. But we have come across some issues with this. It seems from the documentation that the purpose of using stomp + websockets is to receive messages from the client-side and push those messages to other clients. But we want to receive messages on our queues, and then push these messages to the client-side using websockets. Is this possible? Or would we have to implement a different technology such as Pusher or socket.io to get the queue/topic messages to the browser?
Thanks.
I think stomplets is good solution for this task. In rails application you should use ruby base stomp client, in browser javascript base stomp client. In rails just send data, and in browser just receive.
More detail how do it you can find in torquebox documentation
http://torquebox.org/documentation/2.0.0/stomp.html
It is indeed possible to push messages straight from the server to clients. It took me quite a bit of digging to find it as it is not listed in the documentation directly. Their blog lists it in their example of how to build a chat client using websockets.
http://torquebox.org/news/2011/08/23/stomp-chat-demo-part3/
Basically you use the inject method to choose which channel you're publishing to, and then use the publish method on the returned object to actually send the message. This code excerpt from the article should get you pointed in the right direction.
inject( '/topics/chat' ).publish( message,
:properties=>{
:recipient=>username,
:sender=>'system'
} )
It looks like :properties is the same thing as message headers. I'll be giving this a go over the next couple of days to see how well this works in Rails.