Hi All, Please find the documentation PR [1] for this feature.
[1] https://github.com/apache/synapse/pull/47 On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:13 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Can someone kindly look into the aforementioned PR and merge it. I will > send the documentation PR soon after that. > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 10:34 PM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>
