Ref: Official GlassFish 4.0 docs/javaee-tutorial Java EE 7
Firstly, let us start with the destination-type of: topic.
As per GlassFish 4.0 tutorial, section “46.4 Writing High Performance and Scalable JMS Applications”:
This section describes how to use the JMS API to write applications
that can handle high volumes of messages robustly.
In the subsection “46.4.2 Using Shared Durable Subscriptions”:
The SharedDurableSubscriberExample.java client shows how to use shared
durable subscriptions. It shows how shared durable subscriptions
combine the advantages of durable subscriptions (the subscription
remains active when the client is not) with those of shared consumers
(the message load can be divided among multiple clients).
When we run this example as per “46.4.2.1 To Run the ShareDurableSubscriberExample and Producer Clients”, it gives us the same effect/functionality as previous example on destination-type of queue: if we follow “46.2.6.2 To Run the AsynchConsumer and Producer Clients”, points 5 onwards – and modify it slightly using 2 consumer terminal-windows and 1 producer terminal-window.
Yes, section “45.2.2.2 Publish/Subscribe Messaging Style” does mention:
The JMS API relaxes this requirement to some extent by allowing
applications to create durable subscriptions, which receive messages
sent while the consumers are not active. Durable subscriptions provide
the flexibility and reliability of queues but still allow clients to
send messages to many recipients.
.. and anyway section “46.4 Writing High Performance and Scalable ..” examples are queue style – one message per consumer:
Each message added to the topic subscription is received by only one
consumer, similarly to the way in which each message added to a queue
is received by only one consumer.
What is the precise technical answer for: why, in this example, the use of Shared-Durable-Consumer on Topic is supposed to be, and mentioned under, “High Performance and Scalable JMS Application” vs. use of Asynchronous-Consumer on Queue?
I was wonderign about the same issue, so I found out the following link. I understand that John Ament gave you the right reponse, maybe it was just too short to get a full understand.
Basically, when you create a topic you are assuming that only the subscribed consumers will receive its messages. However processing such a message may requires a heavy processing; in such a cases you can create a shared topic using as much threads as you want.
Why not use a queue? The answer is quite simple, if you use a queue only one consumer will be able to handle such a message.
In order to clarify I will give you an example. Let's say a federal court publishes thousand of sentences every day and you have three distinct applications that depends on it.
Application A just copy the sentences to a database.
Application B parse the sentence and try to find out all relation between people around all previously saved sentences.
Application C parse the sentence and try to find out all relation between companies around all previously saved sentences.
You could use a Topic for the sentences, where Application A, B and C would be subscribed. However it easy to see that Application A can process the message very quicly while Application B and C may take some time. An available solution would consist of create a shared subscription for application B and another one to application C, so multiple threads could act on each of them simultaneouly...
...Of course there are other solutions, you could for example use a unshared topic (i.e. a regular one) and post all received messages on a ArrayBlockingQueue that would be handled by a pool of threads some time later; howecer in such a decision the developer would be the one to worry about queue handling.
Hope this can help.
The idea is that you can have multiple readers on a subscription. This allows you to read more messages faster, assuming you have threads available.
JMS Queue :
queued messages are persisted
each message is guaranteed to be delivered once-and-only-once, even no consumer running when the messages are sent.
JMS Shared Subscription :
subscription could have zero to many consumers
if messages sent when there is no subscriber (durable or not), message will never be received.
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).
I am familiar with JMS and novice with Google Pub/Sub.
In JMS there are 2 options:
Queue: only one consumer can accept message.
Topic: each consumer accepts each message from the topic
I believe that Google Pub/Sub should support something like this, but a quick Googling didn't help me to answer that question.
Please point me out to the corresponding documentation part.
As the name "Pub/Sub" indicates, Google Pub/Sub supports publish/subscribes semantics which correspond to JMS topics. It doesn't support point-to-point semantics which correspond to JMS queues, at least not directly.
You can see an overview of the semantics in the documentation. The "Publisher-subscriber relationships" section may be helpful. To be clear, this documentation does use the word queue in two places:
In the "Pub/Sub message flow" section: "When a message is acknowledged by the subscriber, it is removed from the subscription's message queue."
In the "Common use cases" section: "For example, a large queue of tasks can be efficiently distributed among multiple workers, such as Google Compute Engine instances."
The term queue here is being used to refer to the actual subscription on the topic (i.e. where the messages are placed for subscribers to consume). Furthermore, the architectural overview includes this diagram:
This diagram demonstrates how multiple subscribers can receive messages from the same subscription (e.g. for balancing workloads). This would be akin to the "shared subscription" functionality added for topics in JMS 2.
I was looking for the answer to this question, and I've found this documentation that describe the behaviour of a queue rather than a topic :
https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/subscriber
While a message is outstanding to a subscriber, however, Pub/Sub tries
not to deliver it to any other subscriber on the same subscription.
So my understanding is that if you want
a topic behaviour (one to many): you create many subscriptions, each will get a copy of the message
a queue behaviour : you create one subscription
Then on each subscription you can run one or more subscribers for load balancing, each message is delivered to only one subscriber
I didn't see what kind of distribution among subscribers of a subscription. likely to be round robin.
I'm an IBM MQ novice, however have used other messaging systems in the past (Solace, RabbitMQ, BizTalk). I apologize if some of my MQ terminology is incorrect when it comes to local/remote/transmission queues etc.
I am integrating with a 3rd Party using MQ. I have no control over the use of MQ when it comes to this 3rd party. They define the set integration pattern.
I have my own local Queue Manager.
The 3rd party supports many 100s of different message types.
Typically each message sent to them will result in a response
Responses on overage will be delivered back to my QM within 0.5s (agreed SLA)
The basic model is as follows;
For all outbound messaging I publish to a single queue
All responses come to a single inbound queue on my QM
I do not believe they respect/use the ReplyToQ or ReplyToQmgr header properties
High level overview of the use case;
The MQ usage will be very active. Perhaps 500-1000 outbound messages per second
For the vast majority of these - there will be a user waiting for a response
The current design approach is to put a message onto the outbound queue and then create a subscription to the inbound queue with a JMS selector using the correlation ID.
Here is my challenge;
I am not sure if having so many concurrently subscriptions all with a unique filter on the single inbound queue will perform well. I would appreciate insights into this. I have a 2 node cluster running in a docker container. I don't have details on the spec yet.
My preference would be have messages arrive into the inbound queue and then be routed to many "function" specific local queues on the QM.
I would still use JMS selectors on the message ID in this model - however I would hope the load would be spread from a single deep queue to many shorter queues
It does not seem that I could route messages natively within MQ without an addon such as MQ Integration Broker or ESB (some other products within the WebSphere suite).
It is on this last point I could use some guidance. Can I route within my QM? If so - what options do I have. Alternatively - perhaps there are much better approaches that I have not considered?
Any guidance would be heartily appreciated!!
I have an environment where I have only one app server. I have some messages that take awhile to service (like 10 seconds or so) and I'd like to increase throughput by configuring multiple instances of my consumer application running code to process these messages. I've read about the "competing consumer" pattern and gather that this should be avoided when using MassTransit. According to the MassTransit docs here, each receive endpoint should have a unique queue name. I'm struggling to understand how to map this recommendation to my environment. Is it possible to have N instances of consumers running that each receive the same message, but only one of the instances will actually act on it? In other words, can we implement the "competing consumer" pattern but across multiple queues instead of one?
Or am I looking at this wrong? Do I really need to look into the "Send" method as opposed to "Publish"? The downside with "Send" is that it requires the sender to have direct knowledge of the existence of an endpoint, and I want to be dynamic with the number of consumers/endpoints I have. Is there anything built in to MassTransit that could help with the keeping track of how many consumer instances/queues/endpoints there are that can service a particular message type?
Thanks,
Andy
so the "avoid competing consumers" guidance was from when MSMQ was the primary transport. MSMQ would fall over if multiple threads where reading from the queue.
If you are using RabbitMQ, then competing consumers work brilliantly. Competing consumers is the right answer. Each competing consume will use the same receive from endpoint.
I need some help with topics and selectors.
I have a scenario with a topic having multiple durable subscribers (each with a selector)
not all messages going into the topic aren't read by the consumers - because of unmatching selectors.
This is correct behavior.
However the problem occurs when the unmatched messages reach a certain quantity threshold, because at that point no other messages are being delivered to the consumers
activemq tries to dispatch those old unmatchable messages, but since there is no consumer for them everything is stuck
can anybody help with this?
My setup is ActiveMq 5.5
is there some configuration option, or is it just a flawed design?
I'd say this is a flawed design given there are better alternatives and perhaps a bug in ActiveMQ.
First question: is your producer publishing to this topic setting the JMSExpiration header on those messages?
If yes, the first thing I'd do is create a Jira issue detailing the scenario you described above, because it does seem incorrect that ActiveMQ will continue hold on to and continue send messages for which no selectors apply.
As for flawed design, the minute you hear yourself saying "I need durable subscribers" and you are using ActiveMQ, you should immediately turn to using Virtual Destinations instead. Virtual Destinations have the advantages of topics in that a producer can send a message to a destination and have that message propagated to N number of other destinations for consumption, but doesn't have the disadvantages that come with having durable subscribers on a topic. Read more about Virtual Destinations here.
This is related to the way that ActiveMQ handles sparse selectors. The current implementation doesn't page into the store to look for message matching sparse selectors so you need to make some configuration changes to try and work around this. You can set the maxBrowsePageSize in the configured destination policy, the default is 400. See this page.
Virtual destinations in ActiveMQ is probably the better choice, it almost always is when thinking about using durable subscribers. You could however add some message expiration to you messages and configure the policy to expire messages on inactive durable subscribers if you use a SNAPSHOT version of ActiveMQ 5.6.
It does seem like a bug, (or dashedly inconvenient at the least) but there is a work around using Virtual Destinations.
Quote:
Note that making a topic virtual does add a small CPU overhead when
sending messages to the topic but it is fairly small. From version
5.4, dispatch from virtual topics to subscription queues can be
selectorAware such that only messages that match one of the existing
subscribers are actually dispatched. Using this option prevents the
build up of unmatched messages when selectors are used by exclusive
consumers.