I expect that the connection will only be closed if the header NettyConstants.NETTY_CLOSE_CHANNEL_WHEN_COMPLETE is true.
Glancing at the code I see what you mean, it's quite unlike MINA's producer which checks the session to see if it's connected and reuses it, but it may be that under the hood, yet further under the hood, hehe, way further down into netty's ClientBootstrap and beyond, the connection is being reused. I don't know for sure. This is from Netty front-page, "True connectionless datagram socket support (since 3.1)": And glancing at that bit elsewhere I think it's possible to do without this sort of plumbing, but you'd have to jump into netty code or docs to confirm. Depending on timing and other factors I would go ahead with a POC because it either works or it will work, a failing test from your POC will be most welcome. Taariq On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > I have read the source: > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/camel/trunk/components/camel-netty/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/netty/NettyProducer.java > > Take a look at the process() method. In there, there is a block of > code that does: > > ChannelFuture channelFuture; > final Channel channel; > try { > channelFuture = openConnection(exchange, callback); > channel = openChannel(channelFuture); > } catch (Exception e) { > exchange.setException(e); > callback.done(true); > return true; > } > > > This is not inside an if block or anything and the openConnection() > method does actually open it, it isn't just returning a > previously-opened connection or anything. > > Perhaps I'm missing something (entirely possible), but it appears that > it's opening the connection every time the process() method is called. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That doesn't sound right, what have you read? Logs/docs? > > And are you using keep-alive? > > > > Taariq > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2011, at 12:12 AM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > wrote: > > > >> Well, it looks like the camel-netty component won't work for me. It > >> appears that it opens the connection for each exchange. Am I reading > >> that right? What I need is a persistent connection with automatic > >> reconnects. Oh well, back to the drawing board. > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Carman > >> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>> That's what I've been staring at! :) Here's what I'm thinking I'm > >>> going to need to write. I need an async processor that remembers the > >>> AsyncCallback and associates it with a correlation id. Then, when > >>> another exchange comes in that has the same correlation id, it will > >>> lookup the previous callback and say that it's done. I have a lot of > >>> questions, though. I've never had to get so "down and dirty" with > >>> Camel before. The components have just worked for me "off the shelf." > >>> > >>> 1. Do I just copy the input message of the Exchange that comes in > >>> second to the output message of the originating exchange? > >>> 2. How do I do a timeout for the original caller (the CXF request)? > >>> 3. How do I detect that the caller has timed out if they do? > >>> > >>> I'm sure I'll have more questions, but these are the ones off the top > >>> of my head. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> James I think the rest of your puzzle is solved by Camel's async API, > >>>> you might have to check if your task is done, maybe your > >>>> requestResponse populates some collection of responses and provides > >>>> some API to return the response given a correlationID. > >>>> Stare at the async docs [1] a few more times and I'm sure you'll find > >>>> your answer. > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://camel.apache.org/async.html > >>>> > >>>> Taariq > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM, James Carman > >>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>> No worries! Thank you for your help. It helped me understand a bit > >>>>> more about how these aggregators work.. However, I still don't > >>>>> understand how to take care of my problem. I guess I'm going to have > >>>>> to roll my own processor or something. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> Hmmm. > >>>>>> Maybe others can help with that if it's possible, I haven't had to > wrestle with it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In my case it is actually a cxf service too, but it's asynchronous > and I send the response once I have it, indicating either timeout or the > actual response. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry I responded to your question without going back to see your > other posts. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Taariq > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 16 Aug 2011, at 10:33 PM, James Carman < > ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In my case, the originating request comes from CXF. How do I send > the > >>>>>>> aggregated response back to CXF? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> The consumer that handles the aggregated/timed-out request or > response. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I have to resend a few times if it's the request, I simply feed it > back into "direct:socketRequestRoute" with the header for the number of > retry attempts incremented. > >>>>>>>> If it's the response I can forward to some process. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Taariq > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2011, at 10:18 PM, James Carman < > ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What's listening on the: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> to("direct:requestResponse") > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Taariq Levack < > taar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Sure > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You can of course solve what I've described many ways, but I'll > >>>>>>>>>> explain using 3 routes as that's what I used. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This first route is the main route I mentioned earlier, so you > send > >>>>>>>>>> your socket messages here and it's multicast to both the > aggregator > >>>>>>>>>> and to the socket. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > from("direct:socketRequestRoute").multicast().to("direct:requestResponseAggregator", > >>>>>>>>>> "someOutboundSocketEndpoint"); > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This next route will aggregate, both requests and responses are > sent > >>>>>>>>>> here as you envisaged. > >>>>>>>>>> from("direct:requestResponseAggregator"). > >>>>>>>>>> .aggregate(header("someCorrellationId"), > >>>>>>>>>> requestResponseAggregator) > >>>>>>>>>> .completionSize(2) > >>>>>>>>>> .completionTimeout(5000) > >>>>>>>>>> .to("direct:requestResponse"); //Here you can > send the > >>>>>>>>>> "aggregated" message, in my case it's only the response I > forward > >>>>>>>>>> unless there's a timeout, then I forward the request of course. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Finally the route that consumes the socket responses. > >>>>>>>>>> > from(someInboundSocketEndpoint).processRef("headerEnricher").to("direct:requestResponseAggregator"); > >>>>>>>>>> //this headerEnricher doesn't have to be a processor, you have > many > >>>>>>>>>> options to add a header. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If that's not clear feel free to ask. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Taariq > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:30 PM, James Carman > >>>>>>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Care to share an example? I'm not picturing it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Taariq Levack < > taar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi James > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I did that too for what it's worth. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I send the message to a route that forwards to both the > aggregator and to the socket. > >>>>>>>>>>>> When the response comes in I use an enricher to add the ID to > the headers and then forward to the aggregator. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Taariq > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2011, at 8:55 PM, James Carman < > ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > > >
