As I have been able to verify, in MassTransit with Azure Service Bus, each type of object consumed by a "Consumer" generates a Topic for that type regardless of whether it is only consumed in a specific "receive endpoint" (queue). When sending a message of this type with the "Send()" method, the message is sent directly to the "receive endpoint" (queue) without going through the topic. If this same message is published with the "Publish()" method, it is published in the Topic, and is forwarded to the receive endpoint (queue) from the corresponding subscriber.
My application uses a CQRS pattern where the messages are divided into commands and events. Commands use the send-receive pattern and are therefore always dispatched in MassTransit with the "Send()" method. The events, however, are based on the publish-subscribe pattern, and therefore are always dispatched in MassTransit with the "Publish()" method. As a result, a large number of topics are created on the bus that are never used (one for each type of command), since the messages belonging to these topics are sent directly to the receiver's queue.
For all these reasons, the question I ask is whether it is possible to configure MassTransit so that it does not automatically create the topics of some types of messages consumed because they will only be sent using the "Send()" method? Does this make sense in MassTransit or is it not possible/recommended?
Thank you!
Regards
Edited 16/04/2021
After doing some testing, I edit this topic to clarify that the intention is to configure MassTransit so that it does not automatically create the topics of some types of messages consumed, all of them received on the same receive endpoint. That is, the intention is to configure (dynamically if possible, through the type of object) which types of messages consumed create a topic and which do not in the same receive endpoint. Let's imagine that we have a receive endpoint (a queue) associated with a service, and this service is capable of consuming both commands and events, since the commands are only dispatched through Send(), it is not necessary to create the topic for them, however the events that are dispatched via Publish(), they need their topic (and their subscribers) to exist in order to deliver the message and be consumed.
Thanks in advance
Yes, for a receive endpoint hosting a consumer that will only receive Sent messages, you can specify ConfigureConsumeTopology = false for that receive endpoint. You can do that via a ConsumerDefinition, or when configuring the receive endpoint directly.
UPDATE
It is also possible to disable topology configuration per message type using an attribute on the message contract:
[ConfigureConsumeTopology(false)]
public interface SomeCommand
{
}
This will prevent the topic/exchange from being created and bound to the receive endpoint.
While I can understand the desire to be "pure to the CQRS mantra" and only Send commands, I'd suggest you read this answer and take it into consideration before overburdening your developers with knowing every single endpoint in the system by name...
Related
I'm using Masstransit with RabbitMq to communicate between two web applications .net core.
In the publisher application I publish a message to an exchange 'producer'.
rabbitConfigurator.Message<TMessage>(x => x.SetEntityName("producer"));
In the same application I have a consumer-A of said messages and that works fine (the consumer has an exchange and a queue as recommended by rabbit/masstransit connected to the producer exchange)
rabbitConfigurator.ReceiveEndpoint("consumer-A", x =>
{
x.Consumer<TConsumer>(context);
x.Bind("producer");
});
In a second application I'm trying to setup another consumer-B of the same message type connected to the exchange 'producer'.
rabbitConfigurator.ReceiveEndpoint("consumer-B", x =>
{
x.Consumer<TConsumer>(context);
x.Bind("producer");
});
However messages destined for this second application are getting sent to a skipped queue. From what I can see this second consumer is correctly configured in RabbitMq though.
I can't see what I'm missing.
Edit: In the producing application I can also successfully receive messages in a second consumer. But from another web application it doesn't work - perhaps something to do with the fact that there's a differetn connection/channel ?
Messages sent to the producer exchange should be in a format that can be deserialized by MassTransit. If they aren't, you'll need to add a message deserializer which can support the message type. If it is application/json then you'll need to add the RawJsonMessageDeserializer to the receive endpoint.
If the messages are in the correct format, verify that you have a consumer on the receive endpoint that can consume that message type. Message types must match entirely, including namespace, to be consumed. More details are available in the documentation.
Requirement
A system undergoes some state change, and multiple other parts of the system has to know this(lets call them observers) so that they can perform some actions based on the current state, the actions of the observers are important, if some of the observers are not online(not listening currently due to some trouble, but will be back soon), the message should not be discarded till all the observers gets the message.
Trying to accomplish this with pub/sub model, here are my findings, (please correct if this understanding is wrong) -
The publisher creates an event on specific topic, and multiple subscribers can consume the same message. This model either provides no delivery guarantee(in redis), or delivery is guaranteed once(with messaging queues), ie. when one of the consumer acknowledges a message, the message is discarded(rabbitmq).
Example
A new Person Profile entity gets created in DB
Now,
A background verification service has to know this to trigger the verification process.
Subscriptions service has to know this to add default subscriptions to the user.
Now both the tasks are important, unrelated and can run in parallel.
Now In Queue model, if subscription service is down for some reason, a BG verification process acknowledges the message, the message will be removed from the queue, or if it is fire and forget like most of pub/sub, the delivery is anyhow not guaranteed for both the services.
One more point is both the tasks are unrelated and need not be triggered one after other.
In short, my need is to make sure all the consumers gets the same message and they should be able to acknowledge them individually, the message should be evicted only after all the consumers acknowledged it either of the above approaches doesn't do this.
Anything I am missing here ? How should I approach this problem ?
This scenario is explicitly supported by RabbitMQ's model, which separates "exchanges" from "queues":
A publisher always sends a message to an "exchange", which is just a stateless routing address; it doesn't need to know what queue(s) the message should end up in
A consumer always reads messages from a "queue", which contains its own copy of messages, regardless of where they originated
Multiple consumers can subscribe to the same queue, and each message will be delivered to exactly one consumer
Crucially, an exchange can route the same message to multiple queues, and each will receive a copy of the message
The key thing to understand here is that while we talk about consumers "subscribing" to a queue, the "subscription" part of a "pub-sub" setup is actually the routing from the exchange to the queue.
So a RabbitMQ pub-sub system might look like this:
A new Person Profile entity gets created in DB
This event is published as a message to an "events" topic exchange with a routing key of "entity.profile.created"
The exchange routes copies of the message to multiple queues:
A "verification_service" queue has been bound to this exchange to receive a copy of all messages matching "entity.profile.#"
A "subscription_setup_service" queue has been bound to this exchange to receive a copy of all messages matching "entity.profile.created"
The consuming scripts don't know anything about this routing, they just know that messages will appear in the queue for events that are relevant to them:
The verification service picks up the copy of the message on the "verification_service" queue, processes, and acknowledges it
The subscription setup service picks up the copy of the message on the "subscription_setup_service" queue, processes, and acknowledges it
If there are multiple consuming scripts looking at the same queue, they'll share the messages on that queue between them, but still completely independent of any other queue.
Here's a screenshot from this interactive visualisation tool that shows this scenario:
As you mentioned it is not something that you can control with Redis Pub/Sub data structure.
But you can do it easily with Redis Streams.
Streams will allow you to post messages using the XADD command and then control which consumers are dealing with the message and acknowledge that message has been processed.
You can look at these sample application that provides (in Java) example about:
posting and consuming messages
create multiple consumer groups
manage exceptions
Links:
Getting Started with Redis Streams and Java
Redis Streams in Action ( Project that shows how to use ADD/ACK/PENDING/CLAIM and build an error proof streaming application with Redis Streams and SpringData )
I am integrating several .Net modules using pub/sub messaging using RabbitMQ and MassTransit. Most of the message subscription shall be durable. But some shall be transient. When a consumer dies the messages shall not be stored and already queued messages shall be discarded.
In each module I create 1 bus with 2 receive endpoints. One is configured as durable and non-auto-delete. The other one is configured as non-durable and auto-delete. Each gets its own set of consumers. This works as expected.
Now I am trying to implement request/response messages. Here comes the problem because now the sender has to decide to which exchange to route to. And that is wrong as I want receiver to decide whether to use durable or transient queue.
My questions:
Is there a better way how to support durable and transient subscription at the same time?
Why is MassTransit binding message exchange to an endpoint exchange that is bound to an endpoint queue? Why cannot the message exchange be directly bound to the endpoint queue?
Lets assume that all request consumers in one module are either durable or transient. Is it possible to declare one "module"-exchange which is then bound to either durable or transient queue? So the sender addresses the module exchange and module decides to which queue to bind. How to convince MassTransit to do so?
A module is using durable subscriptions that survive through restarts of module and also broker. After some time, admin (so in run-time of the system) decides to disconnect this module from the system. Can the module somehow unsubscribe everything and let MassTransit to remove the durable exchanges and queues?
Your question starts with request/response sent to an unknown endpoint, and ends with removing exchanges. These are different things, I suppose.
I cannot answer point-by-point, just will try to clear up things.
Request/response by definition requires you to know where you send stuff. As per MassTransit convention, the endpoint address is always an exchange/queue pair address. Therefore, you cannot let receiver decide who will handle this message, it will be delivered to the exchange/queue of the endpoint where you send it to.
About the "unsubscribe" - MassTransit deletes nothing. You have to clean up the binding that is not being used manually or by using the management API.
The undelying use case
It is typical pubsub use case: Consider we have M news sources, and there are N subscribers who subscribe to the desired news sources, and who want to get news updates. However, we want these updates to land up in mongodb - essentially maintain most recent 'k' updates (and can be indexed and searched etc.). We want to design for M to scale upto million publishers, N to scale to few millions.
Subscribers' updates are finally received and stored in more than one hosts and their native mongodbs.
Modeling in rabbitmq
Rabbitmq will be used to persist the mappings (who subscribes to which news source).
I have setup a pubsub system in this way: We create publisher exchanges (each mapping to one news source) and of type 'fanout'.
For modelling subscribers, there are two options.
In the first option, have one queue for each subscriber bound to relevant publisher exchanges. And let the client process open connections to all these subscriber queues and receive the updates (and persist them to mongodb). Note that in this option, when the client is restarted, it has to manage list of all susbcribers, and open connections to all subscriber queues it is responsible for.
In the second option, we want to be able to remove overhead of having to explicitly open on each user queue upon startup. Instead, we want to listen to only one queue - representative of all subscribers who will send updates to this client host.
For achieving this, we first create one exchange for each subscriber and let it bind to the publisher exchange(s) that it follows. We let a single queue for each client, and let the subscriber exchange bind to this queue (type=direct) if the subscriber belongs to that client.
Once the client receives the update message, it should come to know which subscriber exchange it came from. Only then we can add it to mongodb for relevant subscriber. Presumably the subscriber exchange should add this information as a new header on the message.
As per rabbitmq docs, I believe there is no way to get achieve this. (Or more specifically, to get the 'delivery path' property from the delivered message, from which we can get this information).
My questions:
Is it possible to add a new header to message as it passes through exchange?
If this is not possible, then can we achieve it through custom exchange and relevant plugin? Any plugin that I can readily use for this purpose?
I am curious as to why rabbitmq is not providing delivery path property as an optional configuration?
Is there any other way I can achieve the same? (See pubsubhubbub note below)
PubSubHubBub
The use case is very similar to what pubsubhubbub protocol provides for. And there is rabbitmq plugin too called rabbithub. However, our system will be a closed system, and I believe that the webhook approach of the protocol is going to be too much of overhead compared to listening on single queue (and from performance perspective.)
The producer (RMQ Client) of the message should add all the required headers (including the originator's identity) before producing (publishing) it on RMQ. These headers are used for routing.
If, while in transit, the message (including headers) needs to be transformed (e.g. adding new headers), it needs to be sent to the transformer (another RMQ Client). This transformer will essentially become the new publisher.
The actual consumer should receive its intended messages (for which it has subscribed to) through single queue. The routing of all its subscribed messages should be arranged on the RMQ Exchange.
Managing the last 'K' updates should neither be the responsibility of the producer nor the consumer. So, it should be done in the transformer. Producers' messages should be routed to this transformer (for storage) before further re-routing to exchange(s) from where consumers consume.
In our scenario I'm thinking of using the pub sub technique. However I don't know which is the better option.
1 ########
A web service of ours will publish a message that something has happened when it is called externally, ExternalPersonCreatedMessage!
This message will contain a field that represents the destinations to process the message into (multiple allowed).
Various subscribers will subscribe. These subscribers will filter the message to see if any action is required by checking the destination field.
2 ########
A web service of ours will parse the incoming call and publish specific types of messages depending on the destinations supplied in the field. i.e. many Destination[n]PersonCreatedMessage messages would be created.
Subscribers will subscribe to only the specific message they care for. i.e. not having to filter any messages
QUESTIONS
Which of the above is the better option and why? And how do I stop myself from making RequestMessages. From what I've read/seen I should be trying to structure this in a way of PersonCreated, PersonDeleted i.e. SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED and NOT in the REQUEST SOMETHING TO HAPPEN form such as CreatePerson or DeletePerson
Are my thoughts correct? I've been looking for guidance on how to structure messages and making sure I don't go down a wrong path but have found no guidance out there on do's and dont's. Can any one help and guide? I want to try and get this correct from the off :)
Based on the integration scenario in the referenced article, it appears to me that you may need a Saga to complete the workflow of accept message -> operate on message -> send confirmation. In the case that the confirmation is sent immediately after the operation, you could use NSBs message handler pipeline feature which allows you to chain handlers in a specified sequence such as...
First<FilterHandler>.Then<DoWorkHandler>().AndThen<SendConfirmationHandler>();
In terms of the content filtering, you can do this although you incur some transport overhead, meaning the queue will have to accept the message and the process will always call the first handler on every message(you can short-circuit the above pipeline at any point). It may be the case that what you really want is a Distributor/Worker setup where all Workers are the same and you can handle some load.
If you truly have different endpoints with completely different logic, then I would have the Publisher process(only accepts and Publishes message) do the work of translating the inbound message to something else a Subscriber can then be interested in. If then you find that a given Published message only ever has 1 Subscriber, then you don't need to Publish at all, you need to just Bus.Send() to the correct endpoint.
The way NServiceBus handles pub-sub is more like your option two.
A publisher service has an input queue and a subscription store.
A subscriber service has an input queue
The subscriber, on start-up will send a subscription message to the input queue of the publisher
The subscription message contains the type of message subscriber is interested in and the subscribers queue address
The publisher records the subscription in the subscription store.
The publisher receives a message.
The publisher evaluates the message type against the list of subscriptions
For each match found the publisher sends the message to the queue address.
In my opinion, you should stop thinking about destinations. Messages are messages. They should not have any inherent destination information in them. The subscription mechanism defines the addressing/routing requirements for the solution.