Willem, Thank you for your help. I don't think this is doing exactly what I need, though. The real trick here is the asynchronous nature of the "server" on the other end of this situation. I thought about using an aggregator to make sure the response gets matched up with the request using a correlation id. The aggregator wouldn't aggregate multiple responses together into one, it would just make sure it matches the correct response with its request. Does this sound like a valid approach? If so, how the heck do I go about it? :)
Thanks, James On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > Camel async process engine already provides the way that you want. > You can take a look at the camel-cxf code[1][2] for some example. > > [1]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/components/camel-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/cxf/CxfConsumer.java?view=markup > [2]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/components/camel-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/cxf/CxfProducer.java?view=markup > > On 8/7/11 1:29 AM, James Carman wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Zbarcea Hadrian<hzbar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi James, >>> >>> I hope I understand your scenario correctly. Here are a few thoughts. I >>> assume want to use camel-netty [1] to send messages to your sever (if you >>> have your own code that does that, you can use it too, but you'd have to >>> write your own Processor or Component). Iiuic, your scenario is converting a >>> 2x in-only to a 1x in-out async mep. You should then treat your exchange as >>> an async in-out and let your framework (Camel) decompose it and compose it >>> back again. I would not keep threads blocked so I believe your best bet is >>> using the Camel async messaging [2] and Futures (look at the examples using >>> asyncSend* and asyncCallback*). The issue is that Camel is stateless so >>> you'll need a correlationId, which you must have already and something to >>> keep your state. A good bet would be jms [3], or you could write your own. >>> If you used jms you would need to use both a correlationId and a replyTo >>> queue. >>> >>> from("jms:request-queue").to("netty:output?=correlationId"); >>> from("netty:input).to("jms:replyTo-queue") >>> >> >> Perhaps a bit more information might be appropriate here. Eventually, >> I'd like to "expose" this route via web services (using CXF of >> course). So, I would need to either block the request thread, waiting >> for a reply or perhaps check out the new Servlet 3.0 asynchronous >> processing stuff (I'm thinking this might help us get more done with >> less http request threads) to do more of a continuation thing. >> >> We already have a correlation id. The "protocol" requires one and the >> server process just echos it back in the response message. >> >>> You may have to play a bit with the correlationId and if you cannot use >>> the same you can do a second transformation/correlation using a claim-check >>> sort of pattern. If you don't want to use jms you can implement your own (in >>> memory) persistence and correlation. You can also use a resequencer [4] if >>> you want to enforce the order. If you use asyncCallback, you get the replies >>> when they become available, and you can control that. >>> >> >> I don't think a resequencer is necessary. I don't want to guarantee >> the ordering. I'm mostly interested in throughput here. So, if a >> message comes in after another, but it can be processed faster, so be >> it. >> >>> It's an interesting scenario, I'll definitely give it more thought, but I >>> hope this helps. >>> Hadrian >>> >> >> You have been very helpful. Thank you for taking the time! >> > > > -- > Willem > ---------------------------------- > FuseSource > Web: http://www.fusesource.com > Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English) > http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese) > Twitter: willemjiang > Weibo: willemjiang >
