We have multiple web and windows applications which were deployed to different servers that we are planning to integrate using NservierBus to let all apps can pub/sub message between them, I think we using pub/sub pattern and using MSMQ transport will be good for it. but one thing I am not clear if it is a way to avoid hard code to set sub endpoint to MSMQ QueueName#ServerName which has server name in it directly if pub is on another server. on 6-pre I saw idea to set endpoint name then using routing to delegate to transport-level address, is that a solution to do that? or only gateway is the solution? is a broker a good idea? what is the best practice for this scenario?
When using pub/sub, the subscriber currently needs to know the location of the queue of the publisher. The subscriber then sends a subscription-message to that queue, every single time it starts up. It cannot know if it subscribed already and if it subscribed for all the messages, since you might have added/configured some new ones.
The publisher reads these subscriptions messages and stores the subscription in storage. NServiceBus does this for you, so there's no need to write code for this. The only thing you need is configuration in the subscriber as to where the (queue of the) publisher is.
I wrote a tutorial myself which you can find here : http://dennis.bloggingabout.net/2015/10/28/nservicebus-publish-subscribe-tutorial/
That being said, you should take special care related to issues regarding websites that publish messages. More information on that can be found here : http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/hosting/publishing-from-web-applications
In a scale out situation with MSMQ, you can also use the distributor : http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/scalability-and-ha/distributor/
As a final note: It depends on the situation, but I would not worry too much about knowing locations of endpoints (or their queues). I would most likely not use pub/sub just for this 'technical issue'. But again, it completely depends on the situation. I can understand that rich-clients which spawn randomly might want this. But there are other solutions as well, with a more centralized storage and an API that is accessed by all the rich clients.
Related
this question is about best practices, and to figure out if I am on the right track. Maybe my thoughts are wrong, maybe there are better alternatives.
I use RabbitMQ (well - evaluate) for communication between services.
Some producders deliver data, some consumers consume it. Great.
For easy understanding let's assume these are messages containing customer addresses.
Later in development I want to introduce a new consumer, working on customer addresses. And here is my question:
Is it possible, to KEEP messages somewhere, so if there is a new consumer, it will get all data from the beginning? So the new consumer could work on that data, and for the user it seems as this new service was always in place.
Is this possible with rabbitmq? Where can I start? If not: what else would help such a solution?
I have used RabbitMQ, but am not an expert, so can't answer that aspect of your question.
However, what you are considering is very likely a bad idea. If you are using RabbitMQ as a queue, you should be thinking of it a means of communicating between services, not as a source of truth for information.
Somewhere in your enterprise, you (hopefully) have a service and accompanying database that stores customer address data. When a new service is deployed, it should consume the data from that service. This may be via migration script, API query or other means. Once the new service is up to date, it can then start processing new data via the queuing infrastructure.
I work on a system where we have the same website across multiple countries. Each of these websites has it's own services. Everything works well, but I've always found myself having to send messages rather than publishing as the messages otherwise other services where I know before hand it's completely irrelevant. It sounds pointless to me publishing to many services and then filtering it's relevance.
Is there a practice I should be dealing with when wanting to publish messages to a certain subset of services, how have others dealt with this problem?
By default endpoints subscribe to all messages. If you want only certain endpoints to subscribe to specific sets, then you need to configure your endpoint to DoNotAutoSubscribe(). You then must explicitly subscribe to each message type the endpoint will be interested in using Bus.Subscribe().
Could you describe your logic of determining relevance for particular endpoint systems ? the purpose of publishing and subscribing is that there are events in a system that other endpoints can subscribe to.
you should not know something about your subscribers. so how do you determine relevance ?
if these messages are not relevant for a specific endpoint why do you want to subscribe to these messages ?
If it truly is an event message then you need to publish the message. If you need to publish to a subset you could have a separate subscription store that the endpoint in question would use.
Typically it should be up to the subscriber to determine whether the received event is relevant but if you do have the information up-front then could go with the separate subscription store.
In my FOSS ESB project (http://shuttle.codeplex.com/) a ISubscriptionManager implementation has to be provided to the ESB to determine the subscriber uris to send published messages to. Although it may be overkill one could provide a custom implementation that contains some logic to perform the filtering; otherwise the separate subscription store.
My team are looking for ways to separate the various components of our system to decoupled services. What we'd like to achieve is an event-driven pattern where services subscribe to receive information sent when events occur in other systems.
Since we're already using WCF for our request-reply messaging, we'd like to continue using it for this particular pattern. Ideally, the messages would be managed via MSMQ to enable us to use reliable messaging to give us fault tolerance in the event of a service failure.
We're not looking for anything complicated like transactional support across service boundaries. Really, we just need a simple subscription-based message dispatch system. Are there any simple frameworks or services which can help us work to this pattern?
Probably the easiest is NServiceBus (http://www.nservicebus.com/PubSub.aspx) but this does not use WCF.
However from a integration perspective sending and receiving messages is far simpler than the messaging semantics on web services, so you don't need WCF to abstract that away.
Edit: In order to enable this using NetMsmqBinding you will have to implement the subscription infrastructure yourself. It would also be fairly easy to do.
Your publisher would need to have a database to store the subscriptions. When your subscribers start up, the first thing they do is send a subscription message to the publisher, who logs the subscription in it's subscription db.
The subscription messages should contain:
The message types I am interested in
My queue address
Then when your publisher wants to publish a message it retrieves the subscriptions and evaluates each one to see if the message matches the subscription and to retrieve the address to send to. Then it just sends the messages.
This is a standard pattern for implementing pub sub.
I've been reading through the documentation on the NServiceBus site but am struggling to piece it all together.
The goal is to provide a durable messaging solution between on-premise back office systems and a public facing web site in another data center.
I will need bidirectional (on-premise <> web site) pub-sub and request-response communication.
The documentation makes it clear that there isn't one central point that all communication goes through, but surely the subscriptions need to persisted somewhere (in a central location?).
The NServiceBus gateway does look like it would meet my requirements but I can't find any working examples of this.
Can someone provide a bit more detail on how the Gateway works and whether it will meet my requirements?
The subscriptions are persisted on each publisher endpoint. Say you have a service endpoint publishing web orders. All other services who are interested can subscribe by sending a subscription message to the publisher, who then stores the subscriptions locally. When a message is available the publisher evaluates the subscriptions and send a message to each of the subscribers.
This brings us onto your other requirement - that of request/response. Because NSB is based on msmq, everything is asynchronous. The most a publisher could do is send a response to a caller just saying that the request has been received and will be published. The nature of async messaging means that you cannot have a synchronous response from any downstream subscribers.
But this cost comes with benefits - namely reliability and availability.
Reliability - because you are using durable messaging the messages will eventually be delivered, at which point a response can be generated which will also eventually find it's way back to the caller. This is highly reliable when compared to request response.
Availability: because the publisher service is always able to send a message (whether a downstream subscriber is available or not), it never needs to block incoming requests. If you load balance your publisher somehow you can easily achieve availability at enterprise levels.
However you need to balance this against your latency requirements. Asynchrony usually equals latency. So if you have latency requirements in the sub-100 ms range NSB may not be your best bet.
Apologies for not answering your query about NSB Gateway - I have never used it.
Hope this helps.
The Gateway solves the communication problem between sites. It will ensure that messages get delivered from SiteA to SiteB. The messages are hashed and validated on the other end. Apparently there isn't an example of this in 2.5, so I'm thinking of throwing one together as this has come up a few times in the past month.
I'm thinking of adding a queue function in a product based on a bunch of WCF services. I've read some about MSMQ, first I thought that was what I needed but I'm not sure and are considering to just put the queue in a database table. I wonder if somone here got some feedback on which way to go.
Basicly I'm planning to have a facade WCF service called over http. The facade service should only write all incoming messages to a queue to give a fast response to the calling system. The messages in the queue should then be processed by another component, either a WCF service or a Windows service depending om my choice of queue.
The product is running in a load balanced enviroment with 2 to n web servers.
The options I'm considering and the questions I got are:
To let the facade WCF write to a MSMQ and then have anothther WCF service reading from this queue to do the processing of the messages. What I don't feel confident about for this alternative from what I've read is how this will work in a load balanced enviroment.
1A. Where should the MSMQ(s) be placed? One on each web server? One on a separate server? Mulitple on a separate server? (not considering need of redundance and that data in rare cases could be lost and re-sent)
1B. How it the design affected if I want the system redundant? I'd like to be alble to lose a server (it never comes up online again) holding the MSMQ without losing the data in that queue. From what I've read about MSMQ that leaves me to the only option of placing the MSMQ on a windows cluster. Is that correct? (I'd like to avoid using a windows cluster fo this).
The second design alternative is to let the facade WCF service write the queue to a database. Then have two or more Windows services to do the processing of the queue. I don't have any questions on this alternative. If you wonder why I don't pick this one as it seems simpler to me then it is because I'd like to build this not introducing any windows services to the solution, that I beleive the MSMQ got functionality I don't want to code myself and I'm also curious about using MSMQ as I've never used it before.
Best Regards
Håkan
OK, so you're not using WCF with MSMQ integration, you're using WCF to create MSMQ messages as an end-product. That simplifies things to "how do I load balance MSMQ?"
The arrangement you use is based on what works best for you.
You could have multiple webservers sending messages to a remote queue on a central machine.
Instead you could have a webservers putting messages in local queues with a central machine polling the queues for new arrivals.
You don't need to cluster MSMQ to make it resilient. You can instead make your code resilient so that it copes with lost messages using dead letter queues, transactional queues, journaling, and so on. Hardware clustering is the easy option :-)
Load-balancing MSMQ - a brief
discussion
Oil and water - MSMQ transactional
messages and load balancing
After reading some more on the subjet I haver decided to not use MSMQ. It seems like I really got no reason to go down this road. I need this to be non-transactional and as I understand it none of the journaling or dead letter techniques will help me with my redundancy requirement.
All my components will be online most of the time (maybe a couple of hours per year when they got access problems).
The MSQM will only add complexity to the exciting solution, another technique and maybe another server to keep track of.
To get full redundance to prevent data loss in MSMQ I will need a windows cluster or implement send/recieve to multiple identical queues. I don't want to do either of those.
All this lead me to front my recieving application with a WCF facade accepting http calls writing to a database queue. This database is already protected from data loss. The queue will be polled by muliple active instances of a Windows Servce containing all the heavy business logic. With low process priority these services could be hosted on the already existing nodes used by the load balaced web application. If I got time to use MSMQ or if I needed it for another reason in my application I might change my decision.