spring amqp custom TTL and retry count - rabbitmq

We are trying to implement Retry mechanism on client exceptions. We want to be able to set different routing key, ttl and retry count based on the content in each message. We want to keep the handler simple, i.e; for handleMessage to throw exception. How do we handle this exception and send the message to DLX with appropriate parameters. On retry if the failure happens again - message would be discarded (acknowledged) , or will be put back on DLX with incrementing the retry count. where would we implement this logic and how would be wired?
========================
With Gary's direction, I was able to implement. Here are excerpts ..
#Bean
public SimpleMessageListenerContainer listenerContainer() {
SimpleMessageListenerContainer container = new SimpleMessageListenerContainer();
container.setConnectionFactory(connectionFactory);
jsonMessageHandler.setQueueName(queueName);
container.setQueueNames(queueName);
container.setMessageListener(jsonMessageListenerAdapter());
container.setAdviceChain(new Advice[]{retryOperationsInterceptor()});
return container;
}
#Bean
public MessageListenerAdapter messageListenerAdapter() {
return new MessageListenerAdapter(messageHandler,messageConverter);
}
#Bean
public MessageListenerAdapter jsonMessageListenerAdapter() {
return new MessageListenerAdapter(jsonMessageHandler);
}
#Bean
RetryOperationsInterceptor retryOperationsInterceptor() {
return RetryInterceptorBuilder.stateless().recoverer(republishMessageRecoverer).maxAttempts(1).build();
}
#Bean
RepublishMessageRecoverer republishMessageRecoverer() {
return new MyRepublishMessageRecoverer(rabbitTemplate());
}
==========
public class MyRepublishMessageRecoverer extends RepublishMessageRecoverer {
// - constructor
#Override
public void recover(Message message, Throwable cause) {
//Deal with headers
long currentCount = 0;
List xDeathList = (List)message.getMessageProperties().getHeaders().get("x-death");
if(xDeathList != null && xDeathList.size() > 0) {
currentCount = (Long)((Map)(xDeathList.get(0))).get("count");
}
if(currentCount < context.getRules().getNumberOfRetries()) {
//message sent to DLX
this.retryTemplate.send(handlerProperties.getSystem(), message);
} else {
//message ignored
}
throw new AmqpRejectAndDontRequeueException(cause);
}
}

You can't modify a rejected message, it is routed to the DLX/DLQ unchanged (except x-death headers are added by the broker).
You have to republish to the DLX/DLQ yourself if you want to change message properties.
You can use Spring Retry with a customized RepublishMessageRecoverer to do this.

Related

Throwing exceptions in RabbitMQ listener interceptors (advices)

I've a listener like the following :
#RabbitListener(queues = "${myQueue}")
public void receiveMessages(Message message) {
doTheBusinessLogic(message)
}
I understand from here
What is the ServletFilter equalent of a RabbitMq Listener?
that we can execute some logic before getting inside the listener (an 'interceptor'), using Advice :
see the following code :
#Bean(name = "rabbitListenerContainerFactory")
public SimpleRabbitListenerContainerFactory simpleRabbitListenerContainerFactory(
SimpleRabbitListenerContainerFactoryConfigurer configurer,
ConnectionFactory connectionFactory) {
SimpleRabbitListenerContainerFactory factory = new SimpleRabbitListenerContainerFactory();
configurer.configure(factory, connectionFactory);
factory.setAdviceChain(new MDCAdvice());
return factory;
}
So my question is : if i throw a runtime exception from inside an advice (like this MDCAdvice) is it like i throw it from inside the listener method ?
public static class MDCAdvice implements MethodInterceptor {
#Override
public Object invoke(MethodInvocation invocation) throws Throwable {
// pre process
if (throwBefore) throw new RuntimeException("before")
try {
return invocation.proceed();
}
finally {
// post process
throw new RuntimeException("after")
}
}
}
I mean : is a NACK returned to rabbitmq ? Is the transaction rolled back if the
listener is transactional ?
In general, is totally equivalent to throw it inside the doTheBusinessLogic(message) above ?
Thank you for your help
Yes; any exception thrown in the advice(s) will cause the same behavior as if the exception was thrown in the listener itself.
For example, if you want to discard a message, throw a AmqpRejectAndDontRequeueException.
You can achieve the same by using a MessagePostProcessor (in the afterReceivePostProcessors and return null.

RabbitMQ Camel Consumer - Consume a single message

I have a scenario where I want to "pull" messages of a RabbitMQ queue/topic and process them one at a time.
Specifically if there are already messages sitting on the queue when the consumer starts up.
I have tried the following with no success (meaning, each of these options reads the queue until it is either empty or until another thread closes the context).
1.Stopping route immediately it is first processed
final CamelContext context = new DefaultCamelContext();
try {
context.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
RouteDefinition route = from("rabbitmq:harley?queue=IN&declare=false&autoDelete=false&hostname=localhost&portNumber=5672");
route.process(new Processor() {
Thread stopThread;
#Override
public void process(final Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
String name = exchange.getIn().getHeader(Exchange.FILE_NAME_ONLY, String.class);
String body = exchange.getIn().getBody(String.class);
// Doo some stuff
routeComplete[0] = true;
if (stopThread == null) {
stopThread = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
((DefaultCamelContext)exchange.getContext()).stopRoute("RabbitRoute");
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
};
}
stopThread.start();
}
});
}
});
context.start();
while(!routeComplete[0].booleanValue())
Thread.sleep(100);
context.stop();
}
Similar to 1 but using a latch rather than a while loop and sleep.
Using a PollingConsumer
final CamelContext context = new DefaultCamelContext();
context.start();
Endpoint re = context.getEndpoint(srcRoute);
re.start();
try {
PollingConsumer consumer = re.createPollingConsumer();
consumer.start();
Exchange exchange = consumer.receive();
String bb = exchange.getIn().getBody(String.class);
consumer.stop();
} catch(Exception e){
String mm = e.getMessage();
}
Using a ConsumerTemplate() - code similar to above.
I have also tried enabling preFetch and setting the max number of exchanges to 1.
None of these appear to work, if there are 3 messages on the queue, all are read before I am able to stop the route.
If I were to use the standard RabbitMQ Java API I would use a basicGet() call which lets me read a single message, but for other reasons I would prefer to use a Camel consumer.
Has anyone successfully been able to process a single message on a queue that holds multiple messages using a Camel RabbitMQ Consumer?
Thanks.
This is not the primary intention of the component as its for continued received. But I have created a ticket to look into supporting a basicGet (single receive). There is a new spring based rabbitmq component coming in 3.8 onwards so its going to be implemeneted there (first): https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-16048

Camel Route Losing Message on restart in camel rabbitmq

I am using camel-rabbitmq.
Here is my route defination
camelContext.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
#Override
public void configure() throws Exception {
from("rabbitmq:TEST?queue=TEST&concurrentConsumers=5")
.routeId("jms")
.autoStartup(false)
.throttle(10)
.asyncDelayed()
.log("Consuming message ${body} to ${header.deliveryAddress}")
.process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
System.out.println(atomicLong.decrementAndGet());
}
})
;
}
});
When I push 500 messages to this queue , when stop and start route all message on channel will be lost ,wonder where they are going.
If I configure same route with &autoAck=false it is working properly but losing performance. Why camel not offering same behavior with and without autoAck.
I managed my problem doing following change in rabbitmqconsumer of camel-rabbitmq
public void handleCancelOk(String consumerTag) {
// no work to do
log.info("Received cancelOk signal on the rabbitMQ channel");
**downLatch.countDown();**
}
#Override
protected void doStop() throws Exception {
if (channel == null) {
return;
}
this.requeueChannel=openChannel(consumer.getConnection());
if (tag != null && isChannelOpen()) {
channel.basicCancel(tag);
}
stopping=true;
downLatch.await();
try {
lock.acquire();
if (isChannelOpen()) {
channel.close();
}
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
log.error("Timeout occured");
throw e;
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
log.error("Thread Interrupted!");
} finally {
lock.release();
}
}
By doing this camel route will for message to consumed and avoided message loss.
You need to check rabbitmq consumer prefetch count
consumer prefetch
I think By default consumer picks all the messages in queue to its memory buffers.
If you set the prefetch count to 1, consumer will acknowledge messages one by one.
All the other unacknowledged will be present in the queue in ready state. Waiting to be picked up, after the consumer completes it task on the previous message picked.

TCP Server configuration in Mule - writing into client socket

I am trying to create a mule flow with a TCP inbound endpoint which is a TCP server that listens to a port. When a successful client connection is identified, before receiving any request from the client, I need to write a message into the socket (which lets the client know that I am listening), only after which the client sends me further requests. This is how I do it with a sample java program :
import java.net.*;
import java.io.*;
public class TCPServer
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
ServerSocket serverSocket = null;
try {
serverSocket = new ServerSocket(4445);
}
catch (IOException e)
{
System.err.println("Could not listen on port: 4445.");
System.exit(1);
}
Socket clientSocket = null;
System.out.println ("Waiting for connection.....");
try {
clientSocket = serverSocket.accept();
}
catch (IOException e)
{
System.err.println("Accept failed.");
System.exit(1);
}
System.out.println ("Connection successful");
System.out.println ("Sending output message - .....");
//Sending a message to the client to indicate that the server is active
PrintStream pingStream = new PrintStream(clientSocket.getOutputStream());
pingStream.print("Server listening");
pingStream.flush();
//Now start listening for messages
System.out.println ("Waiting for incoming message - .....");
PrintWriter out = new PrintWriter(clientSocket.getOutputStream(),true);
BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(clientSocket.getInputStream()));
String inputLine;
while ((inputLine = in.readLine()) != null)
{
System.out.println ("Server: " + inputLine);
out.println(inputLine);
if (inputLine.equals("Bye."))
break;
}
out.close();
in.close();
clientSocket.close();
serverSocket.close();
}
}
I have tried to use Mule's TCP inbound endpoint as a server, but I am not able to see how I can identify a successful connection from the client, inorder to trigger the outbound message. The flow gets triggered only when a message is sent across from the client. Is there a way I can extend the functionality of the Mule TCP connector and have a listener which could do the above requirement?
Based on the answer provided, this is how I implemented this -
public class TCPMuleOut extends TcpMessageReceiver {
boolean InitConnection = false;
Socket clientSocket = null;
public TCPMuleOut(Connector connector, FlowConstruct flowConstruct,
InboundEndpoint endpoint) throws CreateException {
super(connector, flowConstruct, endpoint);
}
protected Work createWork(Socket socket) throws IOException {
return new MyTcpWorker(socket, this);
}
protected class MyTcpWorker extends TcpMessageReceiver.TcpWorker {
public MyTcpWorker(Socket socket, AbstractMessageReceiver receiver)
throws IOException {
super(socket, receiver);
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub
}
#Override
protected Object getNextMessage(Object resource) throws Exception {
if (InitConnection == false) {
clientSocket = this.socket;
logger.debug("Sending logon message");
PrintStream pingStream = new PrintStream(
clientSocket.getOutputStream());
pingStream.print("Log on message");
pingStream.flush();
InitConnection = true;
}
long keepAliveTimeout = ((TcpConnector) connector)
.getKeepAliveTimeout();
Object readMsg = null;
try {
// Create a monitor if expiry was set
if (keepAliveTimeout > 0) {
((TcpConnector) connector).getKeepAliveMonitor()
.addExpirable(keepAliveTimeout,
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, this);
}
readMsg = protocol.read(dataIn);
// There was some action so we can clear the monitor
((TcpConnector) connector).getKeepAliveMonitor()
.removeExpirable(this);
if (dataIn.isStreaming()) {
}
return readMsg;
} catch (SocketTimeoutException e) {
((TcpConnector) connector).getKeepAliveMonitor()
.removeExpirable(this);
System.out.println("Socket timeout");
} finally {
if (readMsg == null) {
// Protocols can return a null object, which means we're
// done
// reading messages for now and can mark the stream for
// closing later.
// Also, exceptions can be thrown, in which case we're done
// reading.
dataIn.close();
InitConnection = false;
logger.debug("Client closed");
}
}
return null;
}
}
}
And the TCP connector is as below:
<tcp:connector name="TCP" doc:name="TCP connector"
clientSoTimeout="100000" receiveBacklog="0" receiveBufferSize="0"
sendBufferSize="0" serverSoTimeout="100000" socketSoLinger="0"
validateConnections="true" keepAlive="true">
<receiver-threading-profile
maxThreadsActive="5" maxThreadsIdle="5" />
<reconnect-forever />
<service-overrides messageReceiver="TCPMuleOut" />
<tcp:direct-protocol payloadOnly="true" />
</tcp:connector>
What you're trying to do is a little difficult to accomplish but not impossible. The messages are received by the org.mule.transport.tcp.TcpMessageReceiver class, and this class always consumes the data in the input stream to create the message that injects in the flow.
However, you could extend that receiver and instruct the TCP module to use yours by adding a service-overrides tag in your flow's tcp connector (documented here) and replacing the messageReceiver element.
In your extended receiver you should change the TcpWorker.getNextMessage method in order to send the ack message before read from the input stream.
HTH, Marcos.

WCF ChannelFactory and channels - caching, reusing, closing and recovery

I have the following planned architecture for my WCF client library:
using ChannelFactory instead of svcutil generated proxies because
I need more control and also I want to keep the client in a separate
assembly and avoid regenerating when my WCF service changes
need to apply a behavior with a message inspector to my WCF
endpoint, so each channel is able to send its
own authentication token
my client library will be used from a MVC front-end, so I'll have to think about possible threading issues
I'm using .NET 4.5 (maybe it has some helpers or new approaches to implement WCF clients in some better way?)
I have read many articles about various separate bits but I'm still confused about how to put it all together the right way. I have the following questions:
as I understand, it is recommended to cache ChannelFactory in a static variable and then get channels out of it, right?
is endpoint behavior specific to the entire ChannelFactory or I can apply my authentication behavior for each channel separately? If the behavior is specific to the entire factory, this means that I cannot keep any state information in my endpoint behavior objects because the same auth token will get reused for every channel, but obviously I want each channel to have its own auth token for the current user. This means, that I'll have to calculate the token inside of my endpoint behavior (I can keep it in HttpContext, and my message inspector behavior will just add it to the outgoing messages).
my client class is disposable (implements IDispose). How do I dispose the channel correctly, knowing that it might be in any possible state (not opened, opened, failed ...)? Do I just dispose it? Do I abort it and then dispose? Do I close it (but it might be not opened yet at all) and then dispose?
what do I do if I get some fault when working with the channel? Is only the channel broken or entire ChannelFactory is broken?
I guess, a line of code speaks more than a thousand words, so here is my idea in code form. I have marked all my questions above with "???" in the code.
public class MyServiceClient : IDisposable
{
// channel factory cache
private static ChannelFactory<IMyService> _factory;
private static object _lock = new object();
private IMyService _client = null;
private bool _isDisposed = false;
/// <summary>
/// Creates a channel for the service
/// </summary>
public MyServiceClient()
{
lock (_lock)
{
if (_factory == null)
{
// ... set up custom bindings here and get some config values
var endpoint = new EndpointAddress(myServiceUrl);
_factory = new ChannelFactory<IMyService>(binding, endpoint);
// ???? do I add my auth behavior for entire ChannelFactory
// or I can apply it for individual channels when I create them?
}
}
_client = _factory.CreateChannel();
}
public string MyMethod()
{
RequireClientInWorkingState();
try
{
return _client.MyMethod();
}
catch
{
RecoverFromChannelFailure();
throw;
}
}
private void RequireClientInWorkingState()
{
if (_isDisposed)
throw new InvalidOperationException("This client was disposed. Create a new one.");
// ??? is it enough to check for CommunicationState.Opened && Created?
if (state != CommunicationState.Created && state != CommunicationState.Opened)
throw new InvalidOperationException("The client channel is not ready to work. Create a new one.");
}
private void RecoverFromChannelFailure()
{
// ??? is it the best way to check if there was a problem with the channel?
if (((IChannel)_client).State != CommunicationState.Opened)
{
// ??? is it safe to call Abort? won't it throw?
((IChannel)_client).Abort();
}
// ??? and what about ChannelFactory?
// will it still be able to create channels or it also might be broken and must be thrown away?
// In that case, how do I clean up ChannelFactory correctly before creating a new one?
}
#region IDisposable
public void Dispose()
{
// ??? is it how to free the channel correctly?
// I've heard, broken channels might throw when closing
// ??? what if it is not opened yet?
// ??? what if it is in fault state?
try
{
((IChannel)_client).Close();
}
catch
{
((IChannel)_client).Abort();
}
((IDisposable)_client).Dispose();
_client = null;
_isDisposed = true;
}
#endregion
}
I guess better late then never... and looks like author has it working, this might help future WCF users.
1) ChannelFactory arranges the channel which includes all behaviors for the channel. Creating the channel via CreateChannel method "activates" the channel. Channel factories can be cached.
2) You shape the channel factory with bindings and behaviors. This shape is shared with everyone who creates this channel. As you noted in your comment you can attach message inspectors but more common case is to use Header to send custom state information to the service. You can attach headers via OperationContext.Current
using (var op = new OperationContextScope((IContextChannel)proxy))
{
var header = new MessageHeader<string>("Some State");
var hout = header.GetUntypedHeader("message", "urn:someNamespace");
OperationContext.Current.OutgoingMessageHeaders.Add(hout);
}
3) This is my general way of disposing the client channel and factory (this method is part of my ProxyBase class)
public virtual void Dispose()
{
CloseChannel();
CloseFactory();
}
protected void CloseChannel()
{
if (((IChannel)_client).State == CommunicationState.Opened)
{
try
{
((IChannel)_client).Close();
}
catch (TimeoutException /* timeout */)
{
// Handle the timeout exception
((IChannel)innerChannel).Abort();
}
catch (CommunicationException /* communicationException */)
{
// Handle the communication exception
((IChannel)_client).Abort();
}
}
}
protected void CloseFactory()
{
if (Factory.State == CommunicationState.Opened)
{
try
{
Factory.Close();
}
catch (TimeoutException /* timeout */)
{
// Handle the timeout exception
Factory.Abort();
}
catch (CommunicationException /* communicationException */)
{
// Handle the communication exception
Factory.Abort();
}
}
}
4) WCF will fault the channel not the factory. You can implement a re-connect logic but that would require that you create and derive your clients from some custom ProxyBase e.g.
protected I Channel
{
get
{
lock (_channelLock)
{
if (! object.Equals(innerChannel, default(I)))
{
ICommunicationObject channelObject = innerChannel as ICommunicationObject;
if ((channelObject.State == CommunicationState.Faulted) || (channelObject.State == CommunicationState.Closed))
{
// Channel is faulted or closing for some reason, attempt to recreate channel
innerChannel = default(I);
}
}
if (object.Equals(innerChannel, default(I)))
{
Debug.Assert(Factory != null);
innerChannel = Factory.CreateChannel();
((ICommunicationObject)innerChannel).Faulted += new EventHandler(Channel_Faulted);
}
}
return innerChannel;
}
}
5) Do not re-use channels. Open, do something, close is the normal usage pattern.
6) Create common proxy base class and derive all your clients from it. This can be helpful, like re-connecting, using pre-invoke/post invoke logic, consuming events from factory (e.g. Faulted, Opening)
7) Create your own CustomChannelFactory this gives you further control how factory behaves e.g. Set default timeouts, enforce various binding settings (MaxMessageSizes) etc.
public static void SetTimeouts(Binding binding, TimeSpan? timeout = null, TimeSpan? debugTimeout = null)
{
if (timeout == null)
{
timeout = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 1, 0);
}
if (debugTimeout == null)
{
debugTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 0, 10, 0);
}
if (Debugger.IsAttached)
{
binding.ReceiveTimeout = debugTimeout.Value;
binding.SendTimeout = debugTimeout.Value;
}
else
{
binding.ReceiveTimeout = timeout.Value;
binding.SendTimeout = timeout.Value;
}
}