On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did look at few examples. In your case, from looking at the log, it looks > like it's wrapped twice, that's why is executed twice. The second number is > always larger than the first. Since the Trace is an interceptor too, it looks > like you got an instrument(trace(instrument(processor))). I will take a look > today and see where the problem lies. In any event, your assumption is > correct, instrumentation should not happen twice, and if does it is a bug. > > Thanks for pointing this out, > Hadrian
We'll revisit this in Camel 3.0 where the idea is to make the interception/wrapper dynamic and decided at runtime, instead of laid out at route initialization time. The logic deciding to do this would then be easier to implement. > > > On Dec 3, 2010, at 7:15 AM, ext2 wrote: > >> Sorry, I forget to attach my tracing result; >> >> I am sure , it's wrapped twice; >> Because the Instrument Processor will trace the time only after >> processing. But one processor 's instrument result is traced twice; >> >> Following is my tracing output, you can check it. >> >> - bean: Recording duration: 23 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - bean: Recording duration: 52 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - to: Recording duration: 11 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - to: Recording duration: 18 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - bean: Recording duration: 11 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - bean: Recording duration: 48 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: plain >> text] >> - route: Recording duration: 160 millis for exchange: Exchange[Message: >> plain text] >> >> -----Original ----- >> Sender: ext2 [mailto:x...@tongtech.com] >> Date: 2010-12-3 19:23 >> Receiver: users@camel.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Wast performance? Instrument Interceptor is wrapped twice for >> each processor. >> >> Thanks Harian Zbarcea: >> Instrument will be useful. But being wrapped and execute twice for >> single processor will be a waste; >> Actually, I found this problem while debug and tracing a spring >> configured camel route. At least in Camel 2.4.0 and using spring, it real >> does wrap twice. >> Maybe you could take a moment to debug and tracking a camel route , >> you will see it. >> Or,you can turning on the "TRACE" level for logging, and checking >> the Instrument Processor's output. You could see it; >> Following is my route: >> <route> >> <from uri="direct:from" /> >> <bean id="id0" ref="bean1" method="normal" /> >> <to id="id0_1" uri="mock:result" /> >> <bean id="id1" ref="bean1" method="raiseError" /> >> </route> >> But the trace result is : 2 of first bean, 2 of the "to" endpoint, >> 2 of the second bean and 1 for route; >> >> -----Origin ----- >> Sender: Hadrian Zbarcea [mailto:hzbar...@gmail.com] >> Date: 2010/12/2 22:21 >> Receiver: users@camel.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Wast performance? Instrument Interceptor is wrapped twice for >> each processor. >> >> The InstrumentationProcessor is a delegate processor (aka interceptor) that >> allows you do do before and after processing. >> It is not really invoked twice (or I have to see a test case that does that, >> the unit tests in camel I am aware of don't). It is invoked once, takes a >> start timestamp, it delegates processing to the inner processor and then >> takes the time diff and records it. >> >> Now with a DelegateProcessor all this call is synchronous. Being actually a >> DelegateAsyncProcessor, the call to the inner processor is done by the async >> engine (see AsyncProcessorHelper.process()) which calls asynchronously on >> the done() method. I assume this is what you see and interpret as a second >> call. >> >> This design is not wasting performance, quite to the contrary. It ensures a >> better use of resources and scales much better with higher message volume. >> >> I hope this helps, >> Hadrian >> >> >> On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:53 PM, ext2 wrote: >> >>> Hi: >>> Each camel processor will be wrapped with Instrument Interceptor >>> twice. So for each process , the Instrument interceptor will be executed >>> twice. >>> It seems no use but waste performance; >>> Why? Or a bug? >>> Thanks for any suggestion. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- FuseSource Email: cib...@fusesource.com Web: http://fusesource.com Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/ Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen/
