Hi All, Please find the code change for this feature in PR [1].
[1] https://github.com/apache/synapse/pull/46 On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:23 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: > last suggestion much more intuitive. > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:27 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 11:39 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < >> vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Since it is a part of the Message processor itself; >>> Why can't we stick to <parameter name="throttle">true</parameter>? >>> >> >> Yeah. I think you are right. Compared to what I suggested *throttle* seems >> to be better. >> >> <messageProcessor class= >> "org.apache.synapse.message.processors.forward.ScheduledMessageForwardingProcessor" >> name="ScheduledProcessor" messageStore="MyStore"> <parameter name= >> "interval">10000</parameter> *<parameter >> name="throttle">true</parameter>* <parameter name="max.deliver.attempts"> >> 3</parameter> <parameter name="max.deliver.drop">true</parameter> </ >> messageProcessor> >> >> Other option we can go with is *consume.all *and the configuration would >> look like as below, >> >> <messageProcessor class= >> "org.apache.synapse.message.processors.forward.ScheduledMessageForwardingProcessor" >> name="ScheduledProcessor" messageStore="MyStore"> <parameter name= >> "interval">10000</parameter> *<parameter >> name="consume.all">true</parameter>* <parameter name= >> "max.deliver.attempts">3</parameter> <parameter name="max.deliver.drop"> >> true</parameter> </messageProcessor> >> >> I prefer the latter but what do you think ? >> >> >>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:32 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:15 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> If everyone is okay. I can go ahead with the implementation. The below >>>>> is the property that will be introduced. >>>>> >>>>> <parameter name="throttle.message.processing">true</parameter> >>>>> >>>>> Users can use the property to decide what they want to do when the >>>>> message processor is triggered. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Consume all the messages at once >>>>> 2. Consume messages at the rate in which message processor is triggered >>>>> >>>> >>>> Any idea on the aforementioned property ? If you all are okay I can go >>>> ahead and implement the feature. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Shafreen >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:18 PM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards, >>> Vanji >>> >> > > -- > Best Regards, > Vanji >
