For the Orange Live Objects, I want to "filter" the messages coming from a certain "profile" and sends them to a MQTT queue.
For messages with another profile, I would like to send them to a different MQTT queue.
It seems that I can use the Routing Key logic for this, although all examples are based on DevEUI as example (a single sensor) and not on a sensor type (which makes much more sense as you would like to decode your messages per sensor_type iso sensor.
Has anyone already tried if the Routing Key could work with selecting on "profile" level?
for now it's not possible, but with the new version of Live Objects announced for next july, it will be possible to build groups of Lora devices and route corresponding messages in different queues
Related
I'm new to Mass Transit and I would like to understand if it can helps with my scenario.
I'm building a sample application implemented with a CQRS event sourcing architecture and I need a service bus in order to dispatch the events created by the command stack to the query stack denormalizers.
Let's suppose of having a single aggregate in our domain, let's call it Photo, and two different domain events: PhotoUploaded and PhotoArchived.
Given this scenario, we have two different message types and the default Mass Transit behaviour is creating two different RabbitMq exchanges: one for the PhotoUploaded message type and the other for the PhotoArchived message type.
Let's suppose of having a single denormalizer called PhotoDenormalizer: this service will be a consumer of both message types, because the photo read model must be updated whenever a photo is uploaded or archived.
Given the default Mass Transit topology, there will be two different exchanges so the message processing order cannot be guaranteed between events of different types: the only guarantee that we have is that all the events of the same type will be processed in order, but we cannot guarantee the processing order between events of different type (notice that, given the events semantic of my example, the processing order matters).
How can I handle such a scenario ? Is Mass Transit suitable with my needs ? Am I completely missing the point with domain events dispatching ?
Disclaimer: this is not an answer to your question, but rather a preventive message why you should not do what you are planning to do.
Whilst message brokers like RMQ and messaging middleware libraries like MassTransit are perfect for integration, I strongly advise against using message brokers for event-sourcing. I can refer to my old answer Event-sourcing: when (and not) should I use Message Queue? that explains the reasons behind it.
One of the reasons you have found yourself - event order will never be guaranteed.
Another obvious reason is that building read models from events that are published via a message broker effectively removes the possibility for replay and to build new read models that would need to start processing events from the beginning of time, but all they get are events that are being published now.
Aggregates form transactional boundaries, so every command needs to guarantee that it completes within one transaction. Whilst MT supports the transaction middleware, it only guarantees that you get a transaction for dependencies that support them, but not for context.Publish(#event) in the consumer body, since RMQ doesn't support transactions. You get a good chance of committing changes and not getting events on the read side. So, the rule of thumb for event stores that you should be able to subscribe to the stream of changes from the store, and not publish events from your code, unless those are integration events and not domain events.
For event-sourcing, it is crucial that each read-model keeps its own checkpoint in the stream of events it is projecting. Message brokers don't give you that kind of power since the "checkpoint" is actually your queue and as soon as the message is gone from the queue - it is gone forever, there's no coming back.
Concerning the actual question:
You can use the message topology configuration to set the same entity name for different messages and then they'll be published to the same exchange, but that falls to the "abuse" category like Chris wrote on that page. I haven't tried that but you definitely can experiment. Message CLR type is part of the metadata, so there shouldn't be deserialization issues.
But again, putting messages in the same exchange won't give you any ordering guarantees, except the fact that all messages will land in one queue for the consuming service.
You will have to at least set the partitioning filter based on your aggregate id, to prevent multiple messages for the same aggregate from being processed in parallel. That, by the way, is also useful for integration. That's how we do it:
void AddHandler<T>(Func<ConsumeContext<T>, string> partition) where T : class
=> ep.Handler<T>(
c => appService.Handle(c, aggregateStore),
hc => hc.UsePartitioner(8, partition));
AddHandler<InternalCommands.V1.Whatever>(c => c.Message.StreamGuid);
We are currently starting to broadcast events from one central applications to other possibly interested consumer applications, and we have different options among members of our team about how much we should put in our published messages.
The general idea/architecture is the following :
In the producer application :
the user interacts with some entities (Aggregate Roots in the DDD sense) that can be created/modified/deleted
Based on what is happening, Domain Events are raised (ex : EntityXCreated, EntityYDeleted, EntityZTransferred etc ... i.e. not only CRUD, but mostly )
Raised events are translated/converted into messages that we send to a RabbitMQ Exchange
in RabbitMQ (we are using RabbitMQ but I believe the question is actually technology-independent):
we define a queue for each consuming application
bindings connect the exchange to the consumer queues (possibly with message filtering)
In the consuming application(s)
application consumes and process messages from its queue
Based on Enterprise Integration Patterns we are trying to define the Canonical format for our published messages, and are hesitating between 2 approaches :
Minimalist messages / event-store-ish : for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains only the parts of the Aggregate Root that are relevant (for instance, when an update is done, only publish information about the updated section of the aggregate root, more or less matching the process the end-user goes through when using our application)
Pros
small message size
very specialized message types
close to the "Domain Events"
Cons
problematic if delivery order is not guaranteed (i.e. what if Update message is received before Create message ? )
consumers need to know which message types to subscribe to (possibly a big list / domain knowledge is needed)
what if consumer state and producer state get out of sync ?
how to handle new consumer that registers in the future, but does not have knowledge of all the past events
Fully-contained idempotent-ish messages : for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains a full snapshot of the Aggregate Root at that point in time, hence handling in reality only 2 kind of messages "Create or Update" and "Delete" (+metadata with more specific info if necessary)
Pros
idempotent (declarative messages stating "this is what the truth is like, synchronize yourself however you can")
lower number of message formats to maintain/handle
allow to progressively correct synchronization errors of consumers
consumer automagically handle new Domain Events as long as the resulting message follows canonical data model
Cons
bigger message payload
less pure
Would you recommend an approach over the other ?
Is there another approach we should consider ?
Is there another approach we should consider ?
You might also consider not leaking information out of the service acting as the technical authority for that part of the business
Which roughly means that your events carry identifiers, so that interested parties can know that an entity of interest has changed, and can query the authority for updates to the state.
for each event published by the Domain Model, generate a message that contains a full snapshot of the Aggregate Root at that point in time
This also has the additional Con that any change to the representation of the aggregate also implies a change to the message schema, which is part of the API. So internal changes to aggregates start rippling out across your service boundaries. If the aggregates you are implementing represent a competitive advantage to your business, you are likely to want to be able to adapt quickly; the ripples add friction that will slow your ability to change.
what if consumer state and producer state get out of sync ?
As best I can tell, this problem indicates a design error. If a consumer needs state, which is to say a view built from the history of an aggregate, then it should be fetching that view from the producer, rather than trying to assemble it from a collection of observed messages.
That is to say, if you need state, you need history (complete, ordered). All a single event really tells you is that the history has changed, and you can evict your previously cached history.
Again, responsiveness to change: if you change the implementation of the producer, and consumers are also trying to cobble together their own copy of the history, then your changes are rippling across the service boundaries.
This is a new area for me so hopefully my question makes sense.
In my program I have a large number of clients which are windows services running on laptops - that are often disconnected. Occasionally they come on line and I want them to receive updates based on user profiles. There are many types of notifications that require the client to perform some work on the local application (i.e. the laptop).
I realize that I could do this with a series of restful database queries, but since there are so many clients (upwards to 10,000) and there are lots of different notification types, I was curious if perhaps this was not a problem better suited for a messaging product like RabbitMQ or even 0MQ.
But how would one set this up. (let's assume in RabbitMQ?
Would each user be assigned their own queue?
Or is it preferable to have each queue be a distinct notification type and you would use some combination of direct exchanges or filtering messages based on a routing key, where the routing key could be a username.
Since each user may potentially have a different set of notifications based on their user profile, I am thinking that each client/consumer would have a specific message for each notification sitting on a queue waiting for them to come online and process it.
Is this the right way of thinking about the problem? Thanks in advance.
It will be easier for you to balance a lot of queues than filter long ones, so it's better to use queue per consumer.
Messages can have arbitrary headers and body so it is the right place for notification types.
Since you will be using long-living queues, waiting for consumers on disk - you better use lazy queues https://www.rabbitmq.com/lazy-queues.html (it's available since version 3.6.0)
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.
I have some camel routes with mina sockets and jetty websockets. I am able to broadcast a message to all the clients connected to the websocket but how do i send a message to a specific endpoint. How do i maintain a list of all connected clients with a client id as reference so i can route to a specific client. Is that possible? Will i be able to mention a dynamic client in the to URI?
Or maybe i am thinking about this wrong and i need to create topics on active mq and have the clients subscribe to it. That would mean that i create a topic for every websocket client? and route the message to the right topic.
Am i atleast on the right track here, any examples you can point out? Google was not helpful.
The approach you take depends on how sensitive the client information is. The downside of a single topic with selectors is that anyone can subscribe to the topic without a selector and see all the information for everyone - not usually something that you want to do.
A better scheme is to use a message distribution mechanism (set of Camel routes) that act as an intermediary between the websocket clients and the system producing the messages. This mechanism is responsible for distributing messages from a single destination to client-specitic destinations. I have worked on a couple of banking web front-ends that used a similar scheme.
In order for this to work you first generate for each user a distinct token/UUID; this is presented to the user when the session is established (usually through some sort of profile query/message).
It's essential that the UUID can be worked out as a hash of the clientId rather than being stored in a DB, as it will be used all the time and you want to make sure this is worked out quickly.
The user then uses that information to connect to specific topics that use that UUID as a suffix. For example two users subscribing to an orderConfirmation topic would each subscribe to their own version of that topic:
clientA -> orderConfirmation.71jqsd87162iuhw78162wd7168
clientB -> orderConfirmation.76232hdwe7r23j92irjh291e0d
To keep track of "presence", your clients would need to periodically send a heartbeat message containing their clientId to a well-known topic that your distribution mechanism listens on. Clients should not be able to subscribe to this topic for reads (see ActiveMQ Security). The message distribution mechanism needs to keep in memory a data structure that contains the clientId and the time a heartbeat was last seen.
When a message is received by the distribution mechanism, it checks whether the clientID for which it received the message has a "live/present" session, determines the UUID for the client, and broadcasts the message on the appropriate topic.
Over time this will create a large number of topics on your broker that you don't want hanging around when the user has gone away. You can configure ActiveMQ to delete these if they have been inactive for some time.
You definitely do not want to create separate endpoint for each client.
Topic and a subscription with selector is an elegant way to resolve it.
I would say the best one.
You need single topic, which every client would subscribe to with the selector looking like where clientId in ('${myClientId}', 'EVERYONE'). Now when you want to publish a message to specific client, you set a property clientId to the id of this client. If you want to broadcast, you set it to 'EVERYONE'
I hope I understand the problem right...