Thanks Quinn,
<groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
<artifactId>camel-parent</artifactId>
<version>2.22.1</version>
<groupId>org.apache.camel</groupId>
<artifactId>camel-mllp</artifactId>
<version>2.21.1</version>
On Friday, January 4, 2019 03:39:56 PM EST, Quinn
Stevenson <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote:
Hmmm… what version of Camel is this?
Quinn Stevenson
qu...@pronoia-solutions.com
(801) 244-7758
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 10:06 AM, John F. Berry <bohnje...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Quinn,
>
> I've attempted to increase the consumers with the uri option of
> maxConcurrentConsumers=15
> [from("mllp://0.0.0.0:9020?maxConcurrentConsumers=15")] to see if there's a
> change.
> I get an error on execution:
> Unknown parameters=[{maxConcurrentConsumers=15}]
> I've tried the Camel uri standard of "concurrentConsumers" with the same
> result.
>
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019, 11:17:15 AM EST, Quinn Stevenson
> <qu...@pronoia-solutions.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the late reply on this - I was on vacation :-)
>
> When I wrote camel-mllp, I had to deal with a somewhat similar situation. I
> had multiple systems sending to the same host:port (same type of data,
> different source systems). So camel-mllp will allow multiple/concurrent
> connections and should handle them just fine.
>
> I’d have to see the exact ERROR/WARN messages to be sure, but I’m guessing
> the sending system is sending messages frequently enough that camel-mllp
> can’t detect the connection is closed fast enough, so you’re hitting the
> maximum number of consumers (defaults to 5). You may need to increase that,
> as well as lower some of the other timeouts so that sockets get cleaned-up a
> little quicker.
>
> For large messages with camel-mllp, you’ll probably want to adjust the buffer
> sizes to handle them a little better.
>
> HTH
>
>
>
>> On Dec 28, 2018, at 9:41 AM, John F. Berry <bohnje...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It seems over the years that an understanding existed in client/server HL7
>> interfaces that one client sends one message at a time to one port. Any
>> more and you're asking for trouble. We moved an interface I have referenced
>> here before recently off of our interface engine to a direct point to point
>> with Camel. What we discovered is that the sending system creates new work
>> instances based on outbound events, and that some of these can occur
>> simultaneously. mllp and/or the general Camel from/to context does not like
>> this.. I get warnings about the message being rejected due to only having
>> one consumer.. which normally I would agree with how it should work. The
>> interface engine, however, seems to be able to accommodate this.. all except
>> for overly huge messages. This interface carries a base64 encoded pdf if
>> one HL7 field that I decode and place on a file system. Get a 30 or 60 page
>> pdf base64 encoded and you get quite the payload.. thus the need to skip the
>> interface engine, even though it did serialize my traffic for me.
>>
>> I attempted to not process, but to dump the message into a queue, thinking
>> that the extra "conversation" and subsequent WARN message from Camel about
>> max consumers was from me delaying the ACK while I process.. but later I put
>> it back, since it occured to me that I should not begin receiving another
>> message until I have ACK/NAK'ed the current message... or we've timed out.
>> Neither was the case.
>>
>> So my long winded history is to ask.. Can I/Should I attempt to allow
>> multiple consumers, and how I might accomplish this in camel. This
>> particular situation, unlike normal HL7.. will not have a problem should
>> arrival order of messages not be completely linear. Each event is
>> completely unrelated to the next, etc.
>>
>> I attempted to simply replace mllp with netty and mina.. figuring that
>> perhaps those might have better handling for this situation, but neither
>> like the big messages and give me excessive frame errors.
>>
>> I have, in an additional issue, exceeded my JVM heap size with some big
>> messages.. I'm attempting to handle that on the JVM side but figured I'd
>> mention it to express the massive size of some of these messages. So if
>> there's an idea of running a "from.. to.. javaq" and process later.. I need
>> to accommodate that in the queue I build as well.
>>
>> Thanks all!
