Using a SimpleMessageListenerContainer that is attached to multiple queues and configured with a ChannelAwareMessageListener. Is it possible to determine which queue a message has been consumed from? In particular if the message was routed to the queue from an Exchange.
It looks that if a message is sent directly to a queue that the MessageProperties#getReceivedRoutingKey will contain the queue name but if the message is routed to a queue via an Exchange then this information contains the routing key that was used.
I'm looking for a mechanism that would allow this information to be extracted correctly regardless of how the message was delivered to the queue. Or a mechanism to enrich the information with a header containing this information on the RabbitMQ side.
I had a similar issue where I wanted to add the queue name to slf4j MDC context.
The only solution I have found is to subclass SimpleMessageListenerContainer and set a ThreadLocal variable for the queue name or in my case the MDC context (which is basically threadlocals).
Because SimpleMessageListenerContainer still doesn't know exactly which queue (you can bind multiple queues to a container) you will have to allow only single queue per container which in my opinion is what you should do regardless.
In my companies own code base we have a magical SimpleMessageListenerContainerFactory that does the creation of custom SimpleMessageListenerContainer based on routing annotations (think spring mvc #RequestMapping for amqp). If there is interest perhaps we can expedite opensourcing it.
Related
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...
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.
I'm interacting with ActiveMQ via STOMP. I have one application which publishes messages and a second application which subscribes and processes the messages.
If I am writing messages to a queue I can be certain that, if I have two consumers, each message will only be processed once (because when a message is completed it is removed from the queue) - but is this functionality available from a topic?
For example; I have a third application which is a logger. I want the logger to receive each message the publisher emits, but I also want exactly one of two (or three or four etc…) of the processors to receive the message too.
Is this possible?
EDIT
It occurs to me that a good way of doing this would be to have a topic which the publisher writes to, and a queue which the processors listen to, with something pushing every message from the topic onto the queue. Can ApacheMQ do this internally?
You can do this internally in ActiveMQ using Mirrored Queues and also use Virtual Topics for some other advanced routing semantics. If you want to have the option of other EIP type messaging patterns then I'd recommend you look into Apache Camel which provides a whole host of EIP pattern functionality.