Hi Jens, On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Jens Goldhammer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ruwan Linton schrieb: > > Jens, > Hi Ruwan, > > > > First of all the idea seems cool but I am wondering whether we need a > > new type of a proxy for this, because Upul is writing an Atom mediator > > and we should be able to extend that to meet these requirements. > Ok, this sound good at first. > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Jens Goldhammer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > wrote: > > > > Hello Mailinglist, > > > > I have a certain form of dynamic recpient list / dynamic router in > my > > mind and I want to share this idea if this would make sense to > > implement > > in Synapse: > > > > It would be nice if Synapse can offer a subscription-mechanism. All > > interested recipients subscribe to a certain topic and receive all > > messages to the specified Adress which they are interested in. > > This can > > be done with a new type of definition- the "subscriber Proxy". > > Maybe you > > can say, all recipients pass a xpath-expression and the > replyTo-Field > > and define in this way a dynamic router (enhanced cbr). All messages > > passed to this proxy will be delivered to the interested recipients > > based on the specified xpath-expression. The answers must be > > aggregated > > because there can be several clients with the same interest and the > > message will be send to more than one provider. > > > > > > I am sorry. I didn't get this aggregation part, why do you think it is > > a must to aggregate the answers, I cannot imagine an aggrgation here. > The aggreation is needed if I want to have a solicit response mex. The > notified client should also send a response to the server (maybe only an > ack or even a new message). > Let me explain in a more detail: > > - There is JMS with the publish-subscribe mechanism with topics. Simple > and it works. Maybe we should consider that, too? Possibility is to > include activeMq into Synapse (optional) and provide configuration > messages like described in EIP-book of Hohpe/Woolf. Maybe I am > completely wrong with this approach, but I think more on deliver > messages to more than one party, maybe a "request and multiple replies" > Pattern. That´s the reason of thinking about aggregation. In my eyes it > is more a --dynamic-- recipient list with aggregation where the > interested parties can subscribe on, get messages and answer to them and > the publisher gets one or more messages back (depending on the > aggregation strategy). I think this is more towards splitting and dynamic recipient list rather than the aggregation. At the same time I think we can improve how we handle recipient lists... > > > - How would this look like with ATOM? Maybe you can keep an eye on the > new specs like WS-EventNotification? Well, I am going to have a look at savan soon... > > > > > > > > > > > > Implementation offers: > > - Apache Muse (WS-Notification specs) > > - Apache Savan (WS-Eventing spec) > > - own implemenation of a new offering protocol > > > > The subscriptions must be shown in the admin console to have a > control > > who wants to have the messages, to kick them and to have an > overview. > > > > > > Well, we can define a special type of a control message to the atom > > mediator so that those control messages will not be published but will > > be used to subscribe users to the atom instead, WDYT? > Yeah, thats a good point. Maybe you can tell me more about the ATOM > mediator? I don't know much about atom (it is just a feed to which you have to subscribe), may be Upul can explain what exactly it is? http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287.txt Thanks, Ruwan -- Ruwan Linton http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
