We Keep Coding

JMS send same message back to SQS

I am working on an approach where i am required to send a message back to SQS.
I don't want it to go as a new message as that will reset the approximateRecieveCount parameter which is required by the code.
Please note that
I cannot send a NACK to the queue as i am reading it as a batch of 10 messages, I want to manually post it back in certain cases for individual message and not as a batch.
The code I am trying to use
I tried setting the JMSMessageId but it is not possible as according to the documentation -
After you send messages, Amazon SQS sets the following headers and properties for each message:
JMSMessageID
JMS_SQS_SequenceNumber (only for FIFO queues)
The code i am using right now is
defaultJmsTemplate.send(destinationName, new MessageCreator() {
#Override
public Message createMessage(Session session) throws JMSException {
Message message = session.createTextMessage(errorMessage);
message.setJMSCorrelationID(transactionId);
if (destinationName.endsWith(".fifo")) {
message.setStringProperty("JMSXGroupID", property.getMessageGroup());
message.setStringProperty("JMS_SQS_DeduplicationId", java.util.UUID.randomUUID().toString());
}
return message;
}
});
}
Is there anything that i can set/use to make sure the message is not treated as a new message and the approximate receive count is maintained?

Yes. This can be done. As you are using JMS for SQS while setting up your consumer you can define an UNORDERED_ACKNOWLEDGE mode in your consumer session. By doing so if you do not acknowledge a particular message it will be redelivered after its visibility timeout expires and the approximateRecieveCount will be incremented. This will not impact your other messages in the same batch. One downside of this is if you are using the fifo queue and the all your messages have same group id then you next message will only be processed after this unacknowledged message ends up in dead letter queue. This will only happen after your message is retried for the Maximum Receives that you have set up in fifo queue configuration. Note : The key here is to not acknowledge a particular message.

Mqtt Client: get Retained Message after Subscribing

I am using the latest Paho version via Maven.
<dependency>
<groupId>org.eclipse.paho</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3</artifactId>
<version>1.2.2</version>
</dependency>
I create client using
MqttClient client = new MqttClient("tcp://localhost", MqttClient.generateClientId());
MqttConnectOptions options = new MqttConnectOptions();
options.setMaxInflight(1000);
options.setAutomaticReconnect(true);
Then I subscribe to a topic as follows:
client.setCallback(new Callback());
client.connect();
client.subscribe(topic);
Another mqtt client publishes a message on that topic with
MqttMessage message = new MqttMessage(byteStream);
message.setRetained(true);
With the retain flag I would expect that as soon as I subscribe, my callback is invoked. Unfortunately, the subscription callback is NOT called if the message is sent before the subscription is executed.
How do I get the retained value?

I think you are using QOS=0.
It is possible a retained message not saved with QOS=0 and retained_flag=true.
More details:
Reference link:
SECTION (3.3.1.3 RETAIN):
If the RETAIN flag is set to 1, in a PUBLISH Packet sent by a Client to a Server, the Server MUST store the Application Message and its QoS, so that it can be delivered to future subscribers whose subscriptions match its topic name [MQTT-3.3.1-5]. When a new subscription is established, the last retained message, if any, on each matching topic name MUST be sent to the subscriber [MQTT-3.3.1-6].
If the Server receives a QoS 0 message with the RETAIN flag set to 1 it MUST discard any message previously retained for that topic. It SHOULD store the new QoS 0 message as the new retained message for that topic, but MAY choose to discard it at any time - if this happens there will be no retained message for that topic [MQTT-3.3.1-7]. See Section 4.1 for more information on storing state.
Summary:
You can use QOS>0 to solve your problem.

Unfortunately, the subscription callback is NOT called if the message is sent before the subscription is executed. How do I get the retained value?
In this case, the publisher (one client) sends out message, immediately disconnects from MQTT broker (server), then the subscriber (another client) connects to the server with the same topic, Without last will message, it is not possible that the published message will be delivered to your subscriber.
There would be options in paho to enable last will message by setting :
will flag
will retain flag
will topic
will message (will payload)
retain flag in PUBLISH control packet (not the same as will retain flag)
Set up all of them when the publisher sends out the message with a topic, the sent message will be retained on MQTT broker even after the publisher closes network connection. At a later time when any subscriber (another client) connects to the broker with the same topic, the retained message will be sent from the broker to the subscriber.
Also please note that QoS field of PUBLISH control packet is for ensuring delivery is complete (at different level) ONLY between MQTT publisher and MQTT broker(server) , NOT between MQTT publisher and subscriber (the 2 clients).

Making sure a message published on a topic exchange is received by at least one consumer

TLDR; In the context of a topic exchange and queues created on the fly by the consumers, how to have a message redelivered / the producer notified when no consumer consumes the message?
I have the following components:
a main service, producing files. Each file has a certain category (e.g. pictures.profile, pictures.gallery)
a set of workers, consuming files and producing a textual output from them (e.g. the size of the file)
I currently have a single RabbitMQ topic exchange.
The producer sends messages to the exchange with routing_key = file_category.
Each consumer creates a queue and binds the exchange to this queue for a set of routing keys (e.g. pictures.* and videos.trending).
When a consumer has processed a file, it pushes the result in a processing_results queue.
Now - this works properly, but it still has a major issue. Currently, if the publisher sends a message with a routing key that no consumer is bound to, the message will be lost. This is because even if the queue created by the consumers is durable, it is destroyed as soon as the consumer disconnects since it is unique to this consumer.
Consumer code (python):
channel.exchange_declare(exchange=exchange_name, type='topic', durable=True)
result = channel.queue_declare(exclusive = True, durable=True)
queue_name = result.method.queue
topics = [ "pictures.*", "videos.trending" ]
for topic in topics:
channel.queue_bind(exchange=exchange_name, queue=queue_name, routing_key=topic)
channel.basic_consume(my_handler, queue=queue_name)
channel.start_consuming()
Loosing a message in this condition is not acceptable in my use case.
Attempted solution
However, "loosing" a message becomes acceptable if the producer is notified that no consumer received the message (in this case it can just resend it later). I figured out the mandatory field could help, since the specification of AMQP states:
This flag tells the server how to react if the message cannot be routed to a queue. If this flag is set, the server will return an unroutable message with a Return method.
This is indeed working - in the producer, I am able to register a ReturnListener :
rabbitMq.confirmSelect();
rabbitMq.addReturnListener( (int replyCode, String replyText, String exchange, String routingKey, AMQP.BasicProperties properties, byte[] body) -> {
log.info("A message was returned by the broker");
});
rabbitMq.basicPublish(exchangeName, "pictures.profile", true /* mandatory */, MessageProperties.PERSISTENT_TEXT_PLAIN, messageBytes);
This will as expected print A message was returned by the broker if a message is sent with a routing key no consumer is bound to.
Now, I also want to know when the message was correctly received by a consumer. So I tried registering a ConfirmListener as well:
rabbitMq.addConfirmListener(new ConfirmListener() {
void handleAck(long deliveryTag, boolean multiple) throws IOException {
log.info("ACK message {}, multiple = ", deliveryTag, multiple);
}
void handleNack(long deliveryTag, boolean multiple) throws IOException {
log.info("NACK message {}, multiple = ", deliveryTag, multiple);
}
});
The issue here is that the ACK is sent by the broker, not by the consumer itself. So when the producer sends a message with a routing key K:
If a consumer is bound to this routing key, the broker just sends an ACK
Otherwise, the broker sends a basic.return followed by a ACK
Cf the docs:
For unroutable messages, the broker will issue a confirm once the exchange verifies a message won't route to any queue (returns an empty list of queues). If the message is also published as mandatory, the basic.return is sent to the client before basic.ack. The same is true for negative acknowledgements (basic.nack).
So while my problem is theoretically solvable using this, it would make the logic of knowing if a message was correctly consumed very complicated (especially in the context of multi threading, persistence in a database, etc.):
send a message
on receive ACK:
if no basic.return was received for this message
the message was correctly consumed
else
the message wasn't correctly consumed
on receive basic.return
the message wasn't correctly consumed
Possible other solutions
Have a queue for each file category, i.e. the queues pictures_profile, pictures_gallery, etc. Not good since it removes a lot of flexibility for the consumers
Have a "response timeout" logic in the producer. The producer sends a message. It expects an "answer" for this message in the processing_results queue. A solution would be to resend the message if it hasn't been answered to after X seconds. I don't like it though, it would create some additional tricky logic in the producer.
Produce the messages with a TTL of 0, and have the producer listen on a dead-letter exchange. This is the official suggested solution to replace the 'immediate' flag removed in RabbitMQ 3.0 (see paragraph Removal of "immediate" flag). According to the docs of the dead letter exchanges, a dead letter exchange can only be configured per-queue. So it wouldn't work here
[edit] A last solution I see is to have every consumer create a durable queue that isn't destroyed when he disconnects, and have it listen on it. Example: consumer1 creates queue-consumer-1 that is bound to the message of myExchange having a routing key abcd. The issue I foresee is that it implies to find an unique identifier for every consumer application instance (e.g. hostname of the machine it runs on).
I would love to have some inputs on that - thanks!
Related to:
RabbitMQ: persistent message with Topic exchange (not applicable here since queues are created "on the fly")
Make sure the broker holds messages until at least one consumer gets it
RabbitMQ Topic Exchange with persisted queue
[edit] Solution
I ended up implementing something that uses a basic.return, as mentioned earlier. It is actually not so tricky to implement, you just have to make sure that your method producing the messages and the method handling the basic returns are synchronized (or have a shared lock if not in the same class), otherwise you can end up with interleaved execution flows that will mess up your business logic.

I believe that an alternate exchange would be the best fit for your use case for the part regarding the identification of not routed messages.
Whenever an exchange with a configured AE cannot route a message to any queue, it publishes the message to the specified AE instead.
Basically upon creation of the "main" exchange, you configure an alternate exchange for it.
For the referenced alternate exchange, I tend to go with a fanout, then create a queue (notroutedq) binded to it.
This means any message that is not published to at least one of the queues bound to your "main" exchange will end up in the notroutedq
Now regarding your statement:
because even if the queue created by the consumers is durable, it is destroyed as soon as the consumer disconnects since it is unique to this consumer.
Seems that you have configured your queues with auto-delete set to true.
If so, in case of disconnect, as you stated, the queue is destroyed and the messages still present on the queue are lost, case not covered by the alternate exchange configuration.
It's not clear from your use case description whether you'd expect in some cases for a message to end up in more than one queue, seemed more a case of one queue per type of processing expected (while keeping the grouping flexible). If indeed the queue split is related to type of processing, I do not see the benefit of setting the queue with auto-delete, expect maybe not having to do any cleanup maintenance when you want to change the bindings.
Assuming you can go with durable queues, then a dead letter exchange (would again go with fanout) with a binding to a dlq would cover the missing cases.
not routed covered by alternate exchange
correct processing already handled by your processing_result queue
problematic processing or too long to be processed covered by the dead letter exchange, in which case the additional headers added upon dead lettering the message can even help to identify the type of actions to take

How to make a JMS Synchronous request

I have an webapp that is expected to fetch and display data from an External App which is accessible only via messaging (JMS).
So, if a user submits a request on a browser, the same HTTP request thread will have to interact with the Messaging system (MQ Series) such that the same request thread can display the data received from the Messaging System.
Is there a pattern I can make use of here? I saw some vague references on the net that use "Correlation ID" in this way:
Msg m = new TextMsg("findDataXYZ");
String cr_id = m.setCorrelationID(id);
sendQueue.send(m).
// now start listening to the Queue for a msg that bears that specific cr_id
Response r = receiverQueue.receive(cr_id);
Is there something better out there? The other patterns I found expect the response to be received asynchronously.. which is not an option for me, since I have to send the response back on the same HTTP request.

The request/reply messaging pattern is useful for your requirement. You typically use a CorrelationId to relate request & reply messages.
While sending request message you set JMSReplyTo destination on the message. Typically a temporary queue is used as JMSReplyTo destination. When creating a consumer to receive response use a selector with JMSCorrelationId, something like
cons = session.createConsumer(tempDestination,"JMSCorrelationId="+requestMsg.JMSMessageId);
At the other end, the application that is processing the request message must use the JMSReplyTo destination to send response. It must also use the MessageId of the request message and set it as CorrelationId of the response message.

First, open the response queue. Then pass that object to the set reply-to method on the message. That way the service responding to your request knows where to send the reply. Typically the service will copy the message ID to the correlation ID field so when you send the message, take the message ID you get back and use that to listen on the reply queue. Of course if you use a dynamic reply-to queue even that isn't neessary - just listen for the next message on the queue.
There's sample code that shows all of this. If you installed to the default location, the sample code lives at "C:\Program Files (x86)\IBM\WebSphere MQ\tools\jms\samples\simple\SimpleRequestor.java" on a Windows box or /var/mqm/toolsjms/samples/simple/SimpleRequestor.java on a *nix box.
And on the off chance you are wondering "install what, exactly?" the WMQ client install is downloadable for free as SupportPac MQC71.

Acknowledge a message from a different Channel/Session in JMS

I need a message to be Acknowledged in a different Session than the one it is created in. If the consumed message is not ACKed in a given time, it should be added back to the queue. Is this possible using JMS( planning to use ActiveMQ as the broker).

I don't think it is possible.
If the message is consumed, it should be acknowledged by the consumer session (it can be auto or client acknowledgement). Acknowledgment is the key for guaranteed messaging and transaction mechanism. JMS server ensures the message is sent/consumed successfully using acknowledgement.
Regarding timeout question, if the JMS server didn't receive the ack in given time period, the message will be redelivered usually with JMSRedelivered flag set. I don't think it will be added back to the Queue then able to be consumed by same session or another session as a new message.