I'm using this code to send and receive Java Object.
TransactionsBean reply = (TransactionsBean) processingTemplate.convertSendAndReceive(EXCHANGE_PROCESSING,
ROUTING_KEY_PROCESSING_TRANSACTION, obj);
I'm thinking is there a need for implementing publisher confirms? Is it better to extend the code in order to ensure reliable delivery or I can just ass try catch block and with replyTimeout to resend again the object? What would be the better approach?
They really represent two different things.
A publisher confirm simply means the message was successfully routed to the queue by the destination.
Not receiving a reply can be for many reasons
the message wasn't delivered to a queue
the server is not running
the server has had some failure
Resending for the latter two cases might not make sense.
So it all depends on your use case.
Related
How can I be sure that data is successfully delivered to the other end in socket programming?
outStream.write() doesn't guarantee that bytes are received on the other end. I can force server to send back some confirmation data, but how long should client wait for it? If I wait too short, maybe data is delivered to the server just when I throw timeout exception in client (which then shows error dialog, but server actually received data). On the other hand, I don't want to wait too much.
Should client wait some time and if confirmation is received, a third "commit" message is sent to server which then supplies data for further processing (so first client writes, then server replies and then client confirms). But then again, if the commit message is not received on server, client thinks that data is successfully sent but server will ignore it after some time, because it didn't receive commit message. And so on, bouncing never ends...
How is this situation generally handled?
Every tutorial that I read is just about creating/closing sockets, and sending data on client side and receiving it on server side.
If you have links to blogs which explain this problem (or even books), that would be good too.
[EDIT]
I should clarify some things. I'm using Java for client and server, and later I will create C# client. Everything is working perfectly for now. Both client and server are on the same LAN and I have never had any real problems. Scenario explained above is just theoretical, because I would like to cover as much as possible, including error handling.
I know TCP guarantees delivery, but in Java, out.write() doesn't block until underlying TCP delivers or fails and then continues execution or throws an exception. It just continues execution and I don't know if sending failed or not. There is no callback function. I'm starting with socket programming so maybe there is very simple solution which I don't know about. All I need to do is to make sure client knows that server received the message (if that is even possible).
If you have this kind of extreme need for reliability, you need to build that into your application and protocol. One way I have done that in the past is as follows.
Say you have a stream of "objects" (objects here defined in whatever way makes sense to your application) that need to be communicated from client C to server S. Associate a unique identifier with each object on the client side. Then have C send each object along with its identifier to S. But have C keep its copy of the object for now (in memory, or on disk, or whatever makes sense).
For each object S receives, it stores the object together with its unique identifier in its own local data store, and sends back an acknowledgment to C that it received the object (using the identifier to communicate that). C can now delete that object from its data store (strictly speaking it can delete all the ones it sent prior to that object as well -- since TCP guarantees sequenced delivery -- but that slightly complicates things).
This process can continue indefinitely and C never needs to explicitly wait for a confirmation for any one object. It simply maintains a local copy of each object. As long as the connection stays up, S will continually acknowledge every object it has received.
If the connection is broken for any reason, C assumes that S has not received any object it sent since the most recently received acknowledgment. When the connection is re-established, C may therefore resend a few objects that S previously received but since S stored the unique identifier along with each object, it simply acknowledges again that it received the object.
If S hangs for some reason, then eventually buffers between client and server will fill up and C's send will block. The client may need to be prepared for this eventuality.
At the end of the stream of objects -- if there is an end -- C will need to wait for the last object to be acknowledged. There's simply no way around that, and so you will need to decide how long it's appropriate to wait before C gives up and declares an error.
(Of course, this is all essentially duplicating at the application layer what TCP is doing at the transport layer: acknowledging what was actually received with the ability for the sender to re-transmit anything that was lost.)
TCP:
TCP guarantees packet delivery at layer 4 of the OSI Model. TCP is based on a handshake in which the receiving party must confirm the packet's delivery. In that case there is either something wrong in your code or your network is malfunctioning. If you are talking about the packet not making it to its destination, make sure you have properly bound the TCP server to the port, and that the destination is correct. While waiting for a packets arrival, make sure you have a receive timeout in place in order to prevent you application from getting hung on the receive.
Using Spring AMQP, when the call to the method rabbitTemplate.send(message) returns (from org.springframework.amqp.rabbit.core.RabbitTemplate class), can we be sure that the message has been delivered and replicated on the RabbitMQ cluster?
UPDATE: This is not correct answer. Please see the answer of #GaryRussell
If you mean the only communication between publisher and RabbitMQ
then yes. You don't have to do anything other than that to ensure message storing and replication is part of RabbitMQ work.
Please remember to catch the AmqpException if there is any problem happen to send message!
No it does not. AMQP is an asynchronous protocol. To guarantee delivery you need to use Publisher Confirms and Returns - and even then, the confirmation (or return) comes back on another thread.
I am trying to understand the best use of RabbitMQ to satisfy the following problem.
As context I'm not concerned with performance in this use case (my peak TPS for this flow is 2 TPS) but I am concerned about resilience.
I have RabbitMQ installed in a cluster and ignoring dead letter queues the basic flow is I have a service receive a request, creates a persistent message which it queues, in a transaction, to a durable queue (at this point I'm happy the request is secured to disk). I then have another process listening for a message, which it reads (not using auto ack), does a bunch of stuff, writes a new message to a different exchange queue in a transaction (again now happy this message is secured to disk). Assuming the transaction completes successfully it manually acks the message back to the original consumer.
At this point my only failure scenario is is I have a failure between the commit of the transaction to write to my second queue and the return of the ack. This will lead to a message being potentially processed twice. Is there anything else I can do to plug this gap or do I have to figure out a way of handling duplicate messages.
As a final bit of context the services are written in java so using the java client libs.
Paul Fitz.
First of all, I suggest you to look a this guide here which has a lot of valid information on your topic.
From the RabbitMQ guide:
At the Producer
When using confirms, producers recovering from a channel or connection
failure should retransmit any messages for which an acknowledgement
has not been received from the broker. There is a possibility of
message duplication here, because the broker might have sent a
confirmation that never reached the producer (due to network failures,
etc). Therefore consumer applications will need to perform
deduplication or handle incoming messages in an idempotent manner.
At the Consumer
In the event of network failure (or a node crashing), messages can be
duplicated, and consumers must be prepared to handle them. If
possible, the simplest way to handle this is to ensure that your
consumers handle messages in an idempotent way rather than explicitly
deal with deduplication.
So, the point is that is not possibile in any way at all to guarantee that this "failure" scenario of yours will not happen. You will always have to deal with network failure, disk failure, put something here failure etc.
What you have to do here is to lean on the messaging architecture and implement if possibile "idempotency" of your messages (which means that even if you process the message twice is not going to happen anything wrong, check this).
If you can't than you should provide some kind of "processed message" list (for example you can use a guid inside every message) and check this list every time you receive a message; you can simply discard them in this case.
To be more "theorical", this post from Brave New Geek is very interesting:
Within the context of a distributed system, you cannot have
exactly-once message delivery.
Hope it helps :)
I understand that there are different ways (or permutations) to implementing a JMS Request-Reply mechanism, i.e. request queue and response queue, request topic and response topic, or a mix of either.
What I would like to know is, (1) what is the recommended (or most common) way and (2) how do the different permutations measure up?
Next, is it more correct to say
a. "Send a message to a queue" or b. "Send a message through a queue"?
Cheers!
Normally, use a queue. "Request" implies a recipient, not a notice to anyone who cares, so you probably want the behaviour of a queue.
Queues usually do better for one thing - or a limited number of peer things - receiving the message and processing it. They also tend to saner persistence models than topic, when it matters that the message actually get to someone who processes it. (eg: if dropping the message is a problem, you probably want a queue)
Topics are more broadcast oriented: say something, and anyone who cares will hear about it. Normally that goes hand-in-hand with "...and no direct response is expected" because the "zero or more listeners" model ... well, zero listeners is always a problem if you expect a response.
Topics can do persistence, but the rules are stranger, and seldom what you actually want.
Finally, I think most people say "to" a queue, because the queue and the thing(s) processing messages off it are distinct, but really, it doesn't matter much as log as you convey your meaning.
Also with a Queue you are able to have multiple subscribers process the messages so its kid of a built in loadbalancer. You cannot do this easily with a Topic.
I am making an application that will work much like a real time chat. A user will be constantly writing on lets say a text area and messages will be send to other users. On the communications class I have set up a receiver. When a message from someone reaches the client, the receive method will be invoked and will get the message. What I can't understand is how the code will be executed. What happens if, while the user is typing/sending a message the receive message is invoked ? What do I need to do in order for this to work properly ?
Hope the question is clear enough.
ps : Im still in the design phase thats why I haven't tested it to see what happens.
Also atm I only use a second thread to receive messages which calls the receive method.
There should not be a problem at all.
When a message from someone reaches the client, the receive method
will be invoked and will get the message. What I can't understand is
how the code will be executed?
You should have a Receiver class that will encapsulate a socket (from which your receive data) and keep a set of listeners (see Observer pattern). A GUI can be one of the listeners. When a message is received via the socket, you need to notify all listeners by forwarding the data received. This way, you have a clean and nice way to notify the GUI about new messages arrivals.
What happens if, while the user is typing/sending a message the
receive message is invoked ?
This depends on the type of IP protocol you are using but in general your don't have to worry about this although I suggest you protect your sockets using lock mechanisms.
What do I need to do in order for this to work properly ?
Here is a nice example that can give you some inspiration :)
EDIT: As for your question regarding execution flow, sending and receiving are two different and uncorrelated operations that can happen at the same time. This can be achieved by implementing send and receive operations in two different threads. Here is an article on socket communications and multithreading.
You should either do what traditional Java EE app servers have done, which is assign a separate thread for processing each incoming message, or try a Java NIO solution along the lines of Netty.