I thought of simply using the time interval that is there for Message Processor.
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:04 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about the configuration of the interval? > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> How about a property name as below? we can make it false by default which >> would give us the current behaviour. >> >> <parameter name="throttle.message.processing">true</parameter> >> >> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:41 AM prabath <prabathm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 to support both behaviors. >>> >>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:26 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Vanji, >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:51 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < >>>> vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let’s consider the current behaviors as a default. >>>>> >>>>> Adding additional Optional property may control to make sure the >>>>> backward comparability. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Okay. We can add a new parameter, that way we can have both behaviors >>>> as you mentioned. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:46 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Current behaviour of the Message Forwarding Processor is to consume >>>>>> all the messages at once. For instance, say, the Message Forwarding >>>>>> Processor is configured to run every 10 seconds and the Message store is >>>>>> filled with 5 messages within the 10 second gap. In such a situation, >>>>>> Message Forwarding Processor consumes all 5 messages and try to send it >>>>>> to >>>>>> back-end as fast as possible. I think this behaviour is not optimal. The >>>>>> purpose of Message Forwarding Processor it to send messages to the >>>>>> back-end >>>>>> in a controlled rate. So that the back-end server can handle the load. >>>>>> IMO, >>>>>> ideal behaviour should be to consume one message at a time and try to >>>>>> send >>>>>> it to the back-end as per the configured interval. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, if the configured interval is a cron expression, in such >>>>>> cases the current behaviour is correct. Because cron expressions could >>>>>> have >>>>>> very large intervals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, I think it is best to keep the current behaviour for cron >>>>>> intervals but change it for normal intervals as aforementioned. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Shafreen >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Prabath Ariyarathna. >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Best Regards, > Vanji >
