I'm just starting understanding and trying ZeroMQ.
It's not clear to me how could I have a two way communication between more than two actors (publisher and subscriber) so that each component is able both to read and write on the MQ.
This would allow to create event-driven architecture, because each component could be listening for an event and reply with another event.
Is there a way to do this with ZeroMQ directly or I should implement my own solution on top of that?
If you want simple two-way communication then you simply set up a publishing socket on each node, and let each connect to the other.
In an many to many setup this quickly becomes tricky to handle. Basically, it sounds like you want some kind of central node that all nodes can "connect" to, receive messages from and, if some conditions on the subscriber are met, send messages to.
Since ZeroMq is a simple "power-socket", and not a message queue (hence its name, ZeroMQ - Zero Message Queue) this is not feasible out-of-the-box.
A simple alternative could be to let each node set up an UDP broadcast socket (not using ZeroMq, just regular sockets). All nodes can listen in to whatever takes place and "publish" its own messages back on the socket, effectively sending it to any nodes listening. This setup works on a LAN and in a setting where it is ok for messages to get lost (like periodical state updates). If the messages needs to be reliable (and possibly durable) you need a more advanced full-blown message queue.
If you can do without durable message queues, you can create a solution based on a central node, a central message handler, to which all nodes can subscribe to and send data to. Basically, create a "server" with one REP (Response) socket (for incoming data) and one PUB (Publisher) socket (for outgoing data). Each client then publishes data to the servers REP socket over a REQ (Request) socket and sets up a SUB (Subscriber) socket to the servers PUB socket.
Check out the ZeroMq guide regarding the various message patterns available.
To spice it up a bit, you could add event "topics", including server side filtering, by splitting up the outgoing messages (on the servers PUB socket) into two message parts (see multi-part messages) where the first part specifies the "topic" and the second part contains the payload (e.g. temp|46.2, speed|134). This way, each client can register its interest in any topic (or all) and let the server filter out only matching messages. See this example for details.
Basically, ZeroMq is "just" an abstraction over regular sockets, providing a couple of messaging patterns to build your solution on top of. However, it relieves you of a lot of tedious work and provides scalability and performance out of the ordinary. It takes some getting used to though. Check out the ZeroMq Guide for more details.
Related
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.
We need to deliver real-time messages to our clients, but their servers are behind a proxy, and we cannot initialize a connection; webhook variant won't work.
What is the best way to deliver real-time messages considering that:
client that is behind a proxy
client can be off for a long period of time, and all messages must be delivered
the protocol/way must be common enough, so that even a PHP developer could easily use it
I have in mind three variants:
WebSocket - client opens a websocket connection, and we send messages that were stored in DB, and messages comming in real time at the same time.
RabbitMQ - all messages are stored in a durable, persistent queue. What if partner will not read from a queue for some time?
HTTP GET - partner will pull messages by blocks. In this approach it is hard to pick optimal pull interval.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!
Since you seem to have to store messages when your peer is not connected, the question applies to any other solution equally: what if the peer is not connected and messages are queueing up?
RabbitMQ is great if you want loose coupling: separating the producer and the consumer sides. The broker will store messages for you if no consumer is connected. This can indeed fill up memory and/or disk space on the broker after some time - in this case RabbitMQ will shut down.
In general, RabbitMQ is a great tool for messaging-based architectures like the one you describe:
Load balancing: you can use multiple publishers and/or consumers, thus sharing load.
Flexibility: you can configure multiple exchanges/queues/bindings if your business logic needs it. You can easily change routing on the broker without reconfiguring multiple publisher/consumer applications.
Flow control: RabbitMQ also gives you some built-in methods for flow control - if a consumer is too slow to keep up with publishers, RabbitMQ will slow down publishers.
You can refactor the architecture later easily. You can set up multiple brokers and link them via shovel/federation. This is very useful if you need your app to work via multiple data centers.
You can easily spot if one side is slower than the other, since queues will start growing if your consumers can't read fast enough from a queue.
High availability and fault tolerance. RabbitMQ is very good at these (thanks to Erlang).
So I'd recommend it over the other two (which might be good for a small-scale app, but you might grow it out quickly is requirements change and you need to scale up things).
Edit: something I missed - if it's not vital to deliver all messages, you can configure queues with a TTL (message will be discarded after a timeout) or with a limit (this limits the number of messages in the queue, if reached new messages will be discarded).
I'm attempting to do a pub/sub architecture where multiple publishers and multiple subscribers exist on the same bus. According to what I've read on the internet, only one socket should ever call bind(), and all others (whether pub or sub) should call connect().
The problem is, with this approach I'm finding that only the publisher that actually calls bind() on the socket ever publishes messages. All of my publishers that call connect() seem to fail silently and don't actually publish any messages to the bus. I've confirmed this isn't a subscriber key issue, as I've written a simple "sniffer" app that subscribes to all messages on the bus, and it is only showing the publisher that called bind().
If I attempt multiple binds with the publisher, the "expected" zmq behavior of silently stealing the bus occurs with ipc, and a port in use error is thrown with tcp.
I've verified this behavior with ipc and tcp endpoints, but ultimately the full system will be using epgm. I assume (though of course may be wrong) that in this situation I wouldn't need a broker since there's no dynamic discovery occurring (endpoints are known, whether ipc, tcp, or epgm multicast).
Is there something I'm missing, perhaps a socket setting, that would be causing the connecting publishers to not actually send their data? According to the literature I've seen on the internet, I'm doing things the "correct" way but it still doesn't work.
For reference, my publisher class has the following methods for setting up the endpoint:
ZmqPublisher::ZmqPublisher()
: m_zmqContext(1), m_zmqSocket(m_zmqContext, ZMQ_PUB)
{}
void ZmqPublisher::bindEndpoint(std::string ep)
{
m_zmqSocket.bind(ep.c_str());
}
void ZmqPublisher::connect(std::string ep)
{
m_zmqSocket.connect(ep.c_str());
}
So ultimately, my question is this: What is the proper way to handle multiple publishers on the same endpoint, and why am I not seeing messages from more than one publisher?
It may or may not be relevant, but The 0MQ Guide has the following slightly enigmatic remark:
In theory with ØMQ sockets, it does not matter which end connects and which end binds. However, in practice there are undocumented differences that I'll come to later. For now, bind the PUB and connect the SUB, unless your network design makes that impossible.
I've not yet discovered where the "come to later" actually happens, but I don't use pub/sub so much, and haven't read the "Advanced Pub-Sub Patterns" part of the guide in great detail.
However, the idea of multiple publishers on a single end-point, to me, suggests the need for an XPUB/XSUB style broker; it's not about dynamic discovery, it's about single point of contact and routing. Ultimately, I think a broker-based topology would simplify your application, and make it easier to identify problems.
Your mistake was that you call a single publisher with bind and others with connect. This is not supported with plain PUB-SUB pattern.
Plain PUB-SUB in ZeroMQ supports only two scenarios (see the image below):
single publisher, multiple subscribers
single subscriber, multiple publishers
In both cases, the party that is "single" must bind and the party that is "multiple" must connect. Otherwise, if you want many-to-many, you can use XPUB-XSUB or some other pattern.
I’m writing a server/client game, a typical scenario looks like this: one client (clientA) send a message to the server, there is a MessageDrivenBean in server to handle such messages. After the MDB finished its job, it sends the result message back to another client (clientB).
In my opinion I only need two queues for such communication, one for input the other for output. Creating new queue for each connection is not a good idea, right?
The Input queue is relative clear, if more clients are sending message at the same time, the messages are just waiting in the queue, while there are more MDB instances in server, that should not a big performance issue.
But on the other side I am not quite clear about the output queue, should I use a topic instead of a queue? Every client is listening the output queue, one of them gets the new message and checks the property to determine if the message is to it, if not, it rollback the transaction, the message goes back to queue and be ready for other client … It should work but must be very slow. If I use topic instead, every client gets a copy of the message, if it’s not to it, just ignores the message. It should be better, right?
I’m new about message system. Is there any suggestion about my implementation? Thanks!
To begin with, choosing JMS as a gaming platform is, well, unusual — businesses use JMS brokers for delivery reliability and transaction support. Do you really need this heavy lifiting in a game? Shouldn't you resort to your own HTTP-based protocol, for example?
That said, two queues are a standard pattern for point-to-point communication. Creating a queue for a new connection is definitely not OK — message-driven beans are attached to queues at deployment time, so you won't be able to respond to queue creation events. Besides, queues are not meant to be created and destroyed in short cycles, they're rather designed to be long-living entities. If you need to deliver a message to one precise client, have the client listen on the server response queue with a message selector set to filter only the messages intended for this client (see javax.jms.Message API).
With topics it's exactly as you noted — each connected client will get a copy of the message — so again, it's not a good pattern to send to n clients a message that has to be discarded by n-1 clients.
MaDa;
You could stick one output queue (or topic) and simply tag the message with a header that identifies the intended client. Then, clients can listen on the queue/topic using a selector. Hopefully your JMS implementation has efficient server-side listener evaluation.
I am looking for a way to send requests and receive call backs from another party.
The only gotcha is that we do not now how it will be designed/deployed on the receiver side.
We do have the text/JSON based messages defined and agreed upon.
Looked at RabbitMQ and others, but each requires a server that would need to be maintained.
Thanks,
RabbitMQ is pretty easy to maintain. You would use two queues, one for requests and the other for replies. Use the AMQP correlation_id header to tag requests and replies so that when a reply message is received it can be matched with the orginal request.
However, if a broker is not for you, then use ZeroMQ. It is a client library available for a dozen or more languages and it enforces messaging patterns over top of sockets. This means that your app does not have to do all the low level socket management. Instead you declare the socket as REQ/REP and ZeroMQ handles all the rest. You just send messages in any format you desire, and you get messages back.
I've used ZeroMQ to implement a memcache style application in Python using REQ/REP.
#user821692: You have to agree not only message format but also destination/transport protocol. For e.g. if both communicating parties has access to same queue physically located anywhere, then they can communicate pre-defined messages. You may also look of sending messages over HTTP..