I am trying to observe sent messages using SendObserver on an ISendEndpoint. When I use GetSendEndpoint from the consume context and add the observer using ConnectSendObserver I notice that the previous observers added from previous messages still exist, so the observer is called multiple times after the first message is sent.
Please note that I have to set the observer through the consume context.
You should use the ConnectHandle returned when the observer is connected to disconnect the observer once the sent messages have been observed. In your case, once the ConsumeContext is no longer being used - such as at the end of the consumer.
That way, you don't accumulate them over time.
Related
I am trying to make sense of which one should be called before and which one later between wl_display_dispatch and wl_display_roundtrip. I have seen both order so wondering which one is correct.
1st order:
wl_display_get_registry(display); wl_registry_add_listener() // this call is just informational
wl_display_dispatch();
wl_display_roundtrip();
what i think : wl_display_dispatch() will read and dispatch events from display fd, whatever is sent by server but in between server might be still processing requests and for brief time fd might be empty.
wl_display_dispatch returns assuming all events are dispatched. Then wl_display_roundtrip() is called and will block until server has processed all request and put then in event queue. So after this, event queue still has pending events, but there is no call to wl_display_dispatch(). How those pending events will be dispatched ? Is that wl_display_dispatch() wait for server to process all events and then dispatch all events?
2nd order:
wl_display_get_registry(display); wl_registry_add_listener() // this call is just informational
wl_display_roundtrip();
wl_display_dispatch();
In this case, wl_display_roundtrip() wait for server to process all events and put them in event queue, So once this return we can assume all events sent from server are available in queue. Then wl_display_dispatch() is called which will dispatch all pending events.
Order 2nd looks correct and logical to me, as there is no chance of leftover pending events in queue. but I have seen Order 1st in may places including in weston client examples code so I am confused whats the correct order of calling.
It would be great if someone could clarify here.
Thanks in advance
2nd order is correct.
client can't do much without getting proxy(handle for global object). what i mean is client can send request by binding to the global object advertised by server so for this client has to block until all global object are bind in registry listener callback.
for example for client to create surface you need to bind wl_compositor interface then to shell interface to give role and then shm(for share memory) and so on.wl_display_dispatch cannot guaranty all the events are processed if your lucky it may dispatch all events too but cannot guarantee every-time. so you should use wl_display_roundtrip for registry at-least.
My system has a constrain for specific consumer that messages should be handled in order, one after the other. To implement that we set the concurrency to 1.
Now we want to scale out and add more instance of this consumer.
To keep the order I want to use distributed lock manager like 'RedLock'. It can tell each consumer if it is OK to fetch the next message.
I work with RabbitMq and my question is if there is kind of observer event that comes before getting messages from the queue. In other words I need a way to enable/disable the operation of polling messages from the queue.
I'm using Oracle ODP.Net for enqueue and dequeue.
Process A : Enqueue
Process B : Dequeue with MessageAvailable event
If Process A and B are running, there is no problem. On the "Process B", the event is always fired.
But, if "Process B" is off and "Process A" is on, when "Process B" restarts, the queues inserted during the off time are lost.
Is there an option for to fire the event for all queues inserted in the past ?
Many Thanks
There seem to be two approaches to address this issue:
Call the Listen() method of the OracleAQQueue class (after registering for message notification) to pick up "orphaned" messages sitting in the queue. Note that Listen() blocks until a message is received or a timeout occurs. So you'd want to specify a (short) timeout to return back to the processing thread in the event no messages are on the queue.
Call the Dequeue() method and trap Oracle error 25228 (no message available to dequeue). See the following thread from the Oracle support forums: https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=2186496.
I've been scratching my head on this topic. If you still have to "manually" test for new messages, what is the benefit of using the MessageAvaiable event callback in the first place? One route I've pondered is to wrap the Listen() method in an async call so that the caller isn't blocking on the thread (until a message is received or a timeout occurs). I wrapped Listen() and Dequeue() in a custom Receive() method and created my own MessageReceived event handler to pass the message details to the calling thread. Seems somewhat redundant, since ODP.NET provides the out-of-box callback, but I don't have to deal with the issue you describe (or write code to "manually" test for "orphaned" messages.
Any comments/thoughts on approach are welcomed.
I've been looking at this one too and have ended up doing something similar to Greg. I've not used the Listen() method though as I don't think it offers me anything over and above a simple Dequeue() - Listen() seems to be beneficial when you want to listen on behalf of multiple consumers, which in my instance is not relevant (see Oracle Docs).
So, in my 'Process B' I first register for notifications before initiating a polling process to check for any existing messages. It doesn't Listen(), it just calls Dequeue() within a controlled loop with a Wait period of a couple of seconds set. If the polling process encounters an Oracle timeout the wait period has expired and polling stops. I may need to consider dealing with timeouts if the wait period hasn't expired (though not 100% sure this if this is likely to happen).
I've noticed that any messages which are enqueued whilst polling will call the message notification method but by the time this connects and tries to retrieve the message the polling process always seems to have taken it. So inside the message notification method I capture and ignore any OracleExceptions with number 25263 (no message in queue <...> with message ID <...>).
I have a very simple flow, a JMS Message starts a process which receives a List of objects. A foreach iterates through this list and sends a JMS Message to component to process the object in the list. This component needs to send a completion notification back to the flow process so it can carry on. Does anyone have any idea of how this can be acheived?
Thanks.
How do you implement sending this message? Using a custom work item node? I see two options:
if you are always expecting a result JMS message, you could have your work item handler send the JMS message when the work item node is triggered but only complete the work item when the expected result message has arrived, this will make the flow only continue if the result message has been received (and you can for example send the work item id as some kind of context parameter in your message so you know which work item to complete if the result comes back)
if you also want to handle more unexpected JMS messages (not necessarily the result of a first request JMS message), you can use an event node for that, and have a JMS listener that translates incoming JMS messages (of a specific type) to signalEvent(..) invocations, that will then continue the flow from the event node forward.
Kris
I have a single AMQ queue that receives simple messages with string body. Consider I'm sending CLSIDs as message bodies. CLSIDs could be not unique, but I'd like to reject all messages with not unique bodies and keep only single instance of such messages in the queue. Is there any simple way to do it?
Currently I'm using a workaround. Messages from the queue are consumed by some processor that tries to insert bodies into a simple DB table with UNIQUE constraint applied to message_body field. If processor inserts the messages succesfuly - it's assigned to exchange.out.body and sent to other queue. If ConstraintViolationException is thrown - nothing is resent to other queue.
I would like to know does AMQ support something similar out of the box?
I believe you can write an interceptor for activemq where you can perform certain actions on messages. Check out: http://activemq.apache.org/interceptors.html
That being said, in my personal opinion this is bad practice. ActiveMQ is a messaging system which should only be responssible for transport of the message. All logic can beter be performed using your application ( either make sure the sender cannot send the same message more then once OR , create an intermediate consumer which indeed matches the received body with a database that contains already seen message bodies BEFORE, routing the message to the actual receiver queue)