I'm currently in the middle of developing a webapplication which needs a websocket connection to receive notifications of events from the server.
The clients are separated in groups and all the clients in a group must receive the same event notifications.
I thought that ActiveMQ could probably support this model, using different queues for each group of clients. It would also be relatively easy to push events to ActiveMQ using stomp, and then use stomp-over-websockets for the clients.
The problem I see is that messages should not be consumed by only one client, but distributed to all the clients connected to the queue.
Also the queue should not be stored. If a client is not connected when the event is generated, then it will never receive it.
I don't know ActiveMQ that much, so I'm not sure if this is possible or if there is another easy solution that could be used instead of writing my own message server.
Thanks
ActiveMQ 5.4.1 supports WebSockets natively (just like Stomp, JMS, etc.).
There is the concept of queues (you mentioned these), but also of topics.
In a queue, a single message will be received by exactly one consumer, in a topic
it goes to all the subscribers. See: http://activemq.apache.org/how-does-a-queue-compare-to-a-topic.html
There are some Stomp-WebSocket JS libraries floating around. Kaazing has a bundle that includes ActiveMQ and supports JMS API/Stomp protocol over WebSockets with support for older browsers, different client technologies, and Cross-Site security.
Look at Pusher, otherwise you'll need something that supports topic based pub/sub. You could look at Redis or RabbitMQ
Related
Currently, we plan to upgrade our product to use MQ(RabbitMQ or ActiveMQ) for message transfer between server and client. And now we are using a network lib(evpp) for doing so.
Because I don't use MQ before, so excpet for a lot of new features of MQ, I can't figure out the essential difference between them, and don't know exactly when and where should we use MQ or just use network library is fine.
And the purpose that we want to use MQ is that we want to solve the unreliability of communication, such as message loss or other problems caused by unstable network environment.
Hope there is someone familiar with both of them could release my confusion. Thanks for advance.
Message queuing systems (MQ, Qpid, RabbitMQ, Kafka, etc.) are higher-layer systems purpose-built for handling messages reliably and flexibly.
Network programming libraries/frameworks (ACE, asio, etc.) are helpful tools for building message queueing (and many other types of) systems.
Note that in the case of ACE, which encompasses much more than just networking, you can use a message queuing system like the above and drive it with a program that also uses ACE's classes for thread management, OS abstraction, event handling, etc.
Like in any network-programming, when a client sends a request to the server, the server responds with a response. But for this to happen the following conditions must be met
The server must be UP and running
The client should be able to make some sort of connection between them
The connection should not break while the server is sending the response to the client or vice-versa
But in case of a message queue, whatever the server wants to tell the client, the message is placed in a message-queue i.e., separate server/instance. The client listens to the message-queue and processes the message. On a positive acknowledgement from the client, the message is removed from the message queue. Obviously a connection has to made by the server to push a message to the message-queue instance. Even if the client is down, the message stays in the queue.
EDIT2: My issue here was caused by an insufficient understanding of how transport connectors work in ActiveMQ. TL;DR is that ActiveMQ will implicitly "transform" or "relay" messages between your transport connector configurations defined in activemq.xml.
EDIT: Additional info, the STOMP messages received by the Angular application are used for debugging and demo purposes. Hence, simply converting the OpenWire message to a blob of readable text is sufficient.
I'm creating an Angular application (preferably website, avoiding native applications), which objective is to "tap in" by web sockets on an ActiveMQ server and subscribe to OpenWire messages. How do I let ActiveMQ transform OpenWire messages to STOMP messages and send these to any clients (i.e. my Angular application) connected to the ActiveMQ WebSocket connector?
In addtiion, it would be nice-to-have if I could transform STOMP to OpenWire as well.
It must be Angular
Avoiding the use of native applications on the client-side is preferable although not a deal-breaker.
Adding extra processing stress on the ActiveMQ server must be done with caution.
To the best of my knowledge, it is only possible to let Angular "talk directly" with the ActiveMQ server by STOMP messages send by web socket, if I am to avoid using native applications.
I already have an Angular application capable of STOMP communication by web sockets (e.g. something like https://github.com/stomp-js/ng2-stompjs-angular7).
I am missing information on how to configure the ActiveMQ server to transform OpenWire-->STOMP through its transport connectors.
In my understanding, what I am trying to do should be possible. It is noted by other users but not how. E.g. users hint that what I want is possible in ActiveMQ but not Apollo: ActiveMQ to Apollo transition, Openwire to Stomp protocol configuration.
I expect (preferably) the need to use something like an ActiveMQ transformer (e.g. adding transformer to the connector configuration: AMQP & Openwire - Activemq broker and 2 different consumers) or maybe writing an ActiveMQ plugin (http://activemq.apache.org/developing-plugins.html). On ActiveMQ's website, an existing transformer is mentioned (http://activemq.apache.org/stomp.html Message Transformations section):
Currently, ActiveMQ comes with a transformer that can transform XML/JSON text to Java objects
... but no mention of how to use this and I am unsure if I can benefit from this and if this means that there are no transformers for OpenWire-->STOMP or vice versa.
I expect I might have misunderstood some of the concepts, and a "you're going in a wrong direction, do this instead" can work out as a good answer for me. At the time of writing, I expect I will have to create an ActiveMQ plugin using their Message Transformer interface (http://activemq.apache.org/message-transformation.html) although their sub links are 404. I hope to achieve a more simple solution, e.g. an existing OpenWire-->STOMP transformer:
<transportConnector name="openwire" uri="{some-openwire-uri}?transport.transformer=stomp"/>
ActiveMQ will "transform" any Openwire message into a STOMP message and vice versa as needed based on client connections. I an Openwire based JMS client connects and places a message onto a queue and a STOMP based client comes along and subscribes to that queue the message will be converted into a STOMP message to send to that client.
Without knowing more about what issue you are having it is hard to provide more insight than that though. There are some cases where the transformation from Openwire to STOMP might not yield exactly the right thing for you such as a MapMessage or StreamMessage and definitely an ObjectMessage so some care needs to be taken about cross protocol messaging.
You do of course need to add a transport connector for each of the protocols you want to support, Openwire, STOMP, AMQP etc. The clients need something to connect to, then once they connect the broker manages the message transformations amongst subscriptions on Topics and Queues.
I am currently developing a typical IoT service. At the moment multiple devices connect to one MQTT broker (mosquitto) and my java backend also connects to the broker (Paho).
The problem i see is the following:
When i am going to have multiple instances of my java backend every backend will receive and process every message received. That`s a big issue. I just want to deliver a message to only one java backend. Anybody an idea how to deal with this problem?
Btw: Java backends will be added or removed depending on the load.
There are a couple of options
Place a queuing system between your application and the MQTT broker, possibly something like Apache Kafka
HiveMQ and IBM MessageSight brokers support (different implementations) of something called shared subscriptions. This allows messages to be shared out between more than one client. Shared subscriptions is likely to be formally added to the MQTTv5 spec which should mean that it will be added to more broker and have a standard implementation.
Is not Apache Kafka another implementation of JMS?
I am using JMS+AMQ in my application, and migrating to Apache Kafka. Do I have to change all JMS codes?
No, Kafka is different from JMS systems such as ActiveMQ.
see ActiveMQ vs Apollo vs Kafka
Kafka has less features than ActiveMQ, as the stress has been put on performances. So before migrating, check that the features you use in AMQ are in Kafka.
However, there is an open suggestion for a bridge between JMS and Kafka, to allow exactly what you need. Maybe the provided links can help you
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1995
Actually, the two are not the same. And with a little more time seeing the two co-exist - and listening to problems and happy points from those deploying each in the field - there is a little more to say about each one.
Firstly, JMS supports both point-to-point messaging (where messages are sent to single consumers; the consumers themselves maintain their message queues) and the publish-and-subscribe (pub/sub) model (where messages are written to a single topic, and consumers, independently, decide which messages to consume).
In a point-to-point messaging architecture, message producers and consumers know each other, where as in a pub/sub model they do not. Apache Kafka focuses on a pub/sub model, maintaining a separate log/topic from which consumers read from offsets. Kafka is also built for the cloud, with high-throughput a core consideration.
Many in our community and at meetups throw their hands up in frustration at MOMs (message-oriented middlewares) like JMS and switch to Kafka, for, what boils down to one reason: scalability. They argue that Kafka is better suited for scale than other MOMs because Kafka maintains a partitioned topic log. In so doing, Kafka can split up message flow to groups of consumers by partition and batch transmit the messages.
This concept also allows Kafka to have more granular control over ACLs (access control) to Kafka Consumers, although there are some issues there, which Apache Pulsar is addressing.
Finally, on Kafka, since the client/consumer decides which messages to consume (by offset in the topic), this removes some of the producer-side complexity of routing rules built into MOMs like JMS.
There's more differences than that, but this is a distillation of some of the ones that keep coming up! Hope this helps.
No, Kafka uses its own non-standard protocol and clients.
However, there's a 3rd-party JMS Client for Kafka from Confluent.
I would like to use MassTransmit similar to NServiceBus, every publisher and subscriber has a local queue. However I want to use RabbitMQ.
So do all my desktop clients have to have RabbitMQ installed, I think so, then should I just connect the 50 desktop clients and 2 servers into a cluster?
I know the two servers must be in the same cluster. However 50 client nodes, seems a bi tmuch to put in one cluster.....Or should I shovel them or Federate them to the server cluster exchange?
The desktop machine send messages like: LockOrder, UnLock Order.
The Servers are dealing with backend hl7 messages.
Any help and advice here is much appreciated, this is all on windows machines.
Basically I am leaving NServiceBus behind, as it is now too expensive, they aiming it at large corporations with big budgets, hence Masstransmit.
However I want reliable/durable messaging, hence local queues on ALL publishers and ALL subscribers.
The desktops also use CQS to update their views.
should I just connect the 50 desktop clients and 2 servers into a cluster?
Yes, you have to connected your clients to the cluster.
However 50 client nodes, seems a bi tmuch to put in one cluster.
No, (or it depends how big are your servers) 50 clients is a small number
Or should I shovel them or Federate them to the server cluster exchange?
The desktop machine send messages like: LockOrder, UnLock Order.
I think it's better the cluster, because federation and shovel are asynchronous, it means that your LockOrder could be not replicated in time.
However I want reliable/durable messaging, hence local queues on ALL publishers and ALL subscribers
Withe RMQ you can create a persistent queue and messages, and it is not necessary if the client(s) is connected. It will get the messages when it will connect to the broker.
I hope it helps.
I have a FOSS ESB rpoject called Shuttle, if you would like to give it a spin: https://github.com/Shuttle/shuttle-esb
I haven't used NServiceBus for a while and actually started Shuttle when it went commercial. The implementation is somewhat different from NServiceBus. I don't know MassTransit at all, though. Currently process managers (sagas) have to be hand-rolled in Shuttle whereas MassTransit and NServiceBus have this incorporated. If I do get around to adding sagas I'll be adding them as a Module that can be plugged into the receiving pipeline. This way one could have various implementations and choose the flavour you like :)
Back to your issue. Shuttle has the concept of an optional outbox for queuing technologies like RabbitMQ. Shuttle does have a RabbitMQ implementation. I believe the outbox works somewhat like 'shovel' does. So the outbox would be local and sending messages would first go to the outbox. It would periodically try to send messages on to the recipients and, after a configurable number of attempts, send the message to an error queue. It can then be returned to the outbox for further attempts, or even moved directly to the recipient queue once it is up.
Documentation here: http://shuttle.github.io/shuttle-esb/