Hi I've helped to do this new transport, so let me add my 2 cents ;)
If the message exchange pattern is one way, there is no problem as no one expects an answer. But that new transport support the request-response pattern. That means that we have to manage reliabiilty of the call end to end, from the client that initiates the call, to the code that process the answer, through the endpoint. If you look at the global picture: http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/download/Main/ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF/cxf-reliablejms-execution-flow-simple-english.png you'll notice that the client is split in 2 parts: the initiator (initiates the call) and the handler (process the result). We don't use the JAXWS AsyncHandler API because it is tightly coupled to the execution context of the client initiator: maybe the handler has some ref to live objects that we cannot persist and/or recreate if the initiator JVM crashes. In order to bypass this issue, we had to tweak the jaxws development model a little bit: * on initiator side, we use the normal (synchronous) generated API, but the stub always returns null (as the call was synchronous, the answer is not there yet) * the initiator provides an AsynchHandler through the Spring application context, this handler will be notified when a response will be posted on the response queue. As this object is created from Spring beans, it is decoupled from the initiator execution context and can be safely used. * The request flow is quite normal: we define a <jaxws:client> on the client side, a <jaxws:endpoint> on the server side * But the response flow is different than what we could expect: the client also defines a <jaxws:endpoint> that will be invoked when JMS messages will be posted on the response queue. As everything is transactional, we have dead message queues, so that we never lost any messages. Hope that helps to understand this potential contribution. Thanks --Guillaume 2011/7/8 Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> > Yes request / response correlation is definately a place where we currently > loose message when the client goes down. > > I think this is o big issue though as you typically only use request > response when you wait for the response. So normally you will even want the > responses to be lost when the client goes down. In the one way case we > should not loose messages as we can also use transactions. > > Still your JMS transport my be interesting. When doing the refactoring to > spring jms templates and message listener I also thought about making the > transport more asynchronous but never really did it. > So I would like to compare your implementation with the current one in cxf. > > I would not like to have both though. If your transport is more suitable we > should throw the other away. In any case we should only have one JMS > transport. > > Christian > > > Am 08.07.2011 14:39, schrieb Florent BENOIT: > > Hi, >> >> One example about the "reliable" stuff is that we should include >> "recovery". >> For example the correlation map used to match JMS replies is stored in >> memory [1] >> 341 Exchange exchange = correlationMap.remove(**correlationId); >> 342 if (exchange == null) { >> 343 LOG.log(Level.WARNING, "Could not correlate message with >> correlationId " + correlationId); >> 344 return; >> 345 } >> >> >> So, if the JVM of the client is restarted, we will loose any replies as we >> won't know how to match the reply. >> Also, there is no JTA used with the current JMS transport. It means that >> we can loose data or to get some messages twice or so one. >> >> So even by using ActiveMQ with the messages being stored on the disk, this >> won't work after a restart. >> >> [1] : >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**cxf/trunk/rt/transports/jms/** >> src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/**transport/jms/JMSConduit.java?** >> view=markup<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/cxf/trunk/rt/transports/jms/src/main/java/org/apache/cxf/transport/jms/JMSConduit.java?view=markup> >> >> Regards, >> >> Florent >> >> On 07/08/2011 02:25 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: >> >>> I'm confused. If you use AMQ configured for reliable storage on disk, >>> how do you lose things with the existing CXF transport? >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Florent BENOIT<florent.ben...@ow2.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi CXF guys, >>>> >>>> I would like to introduce a new CXF transport that we've developed and >>>> that >>>> could be contributed back to the CXF community. It is called "Reliable >>>> JMS >>>> transport" >>>> >>>> When this transport has been designed, the goal was to have a reliable >>>> transport that we could called "Enterprise Transport" as we wanted to >>>> use >>>> transactions and JMS by using containers like Java EE EJB or Spring MDP >>>> (we >>>> support both). We don't want to loose any requests or answers and we >>>> want to >>>> avoid waiting threads. This transport has not been designed from scratch >>>> as >>>> it is using the JMS layer and share some classes with the current CXF >>>> JMS >>>> transport but there are some differences between them. But we couldn't >>>> change the current transport as the design is not the same. >>>> >>>> First, let me give you details about this transport and why it's >>>> different >>>> from the current JMS CXF transport. >>>> >>>> The current CXF JMS transport is not reliable. For example, if you >>>> restart a >>>> client or a server you may loose some requests/answers. This is because >>>> the >>>> mechanism that is used is keeping data in memory. So after a JVM crash, >>>> all >>>> the data are lost. >>>> Also, for this new transport, we wanted to guarantee the delivery so it >>>> is >>>> using transactions. (A transaction manager is then required). >>>> As said before, we wanted to avoid the use of threads waiting for an >>>> answer. >>>> If there are 100 requests, we don't want 100 threads waiting their >>>> answer. >>>> This is because we can use either EJB MDB or Spring MDP to handle the >>>> answer. In this way, resources are allocated only if an answer is >>>> handled >>>> and not during all the waiting time. So the number of threads is >>>> dramatically reduced. Also by relying on EJB MDB or Spring MDP we're >>>> based >>>> on existing patterns. >>>> >>>> Here is a link to the documentation of this transport and pictures that >>>> are >>>> illustrating this solution : >>>> http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/**xwiki/bin/view/Main/** >>>> ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF<http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF> >>>> This illustrates how the >>>> >>>> And the errors handling that is working with all kind of JVM crash : >>>> http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/**xwiki/bin/download/Main/** >>>> ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF/cxf-**reliablejms-execution-flow-** >>>> simple-failure-english.png<http://wiki.jonas.ow2.org/xwiki/bin/download/Main/ReliableJMS_Transport_CXF/cxf-reliablejms-execution-flow-simple-failure-english.png> >>>> >>>> There are integration tests included in this transport that are launched >>>> through our continous integration tool on http://bamboo.ow2.org >>>> For now, they're using JOnAS as Java EE server as we need a JTA manager >>>> and >>>> we test both EJB MDB and Spring MDP providers. >>>> >>>> To sum up, is there an interest in CXF to integrate this transport ? >>>> What >>>> kind of changes need to be done, etc. >>>> Also I hope to get some feedback about this protocol. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Florent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > -- > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > Talend Application Integration Division http://www.talend.com > >
