I'm trying to figure out if rebus supports querying of the queue.
I want to peek in the queue, to find out if a message is already on the queue in a deferred state.
the reason is that we are doing a fairly expensive operation that we want executed once a day and we may have multiple instances of a service, so we want to make sure that we only have on message of this type on the bus.
Is this possible with rebus or should i use the azure service bus api for this?
It's not possible with Rebus :(
To me it sounds more like you want to use some kind of scheduler, e.g. like Quartz .NET, or maybe something you code yourself.
Querying the Azure Service Bus queue sounds like a bad idea to me, because it's kind of backwards, considering that it sounds like you simply want to execute some task daily.
This would suddenly tie you to the ASB transport and its quirks, also tying yourself to the fact that Rebus' deferred messages are implemented using the delayed visibility feature of ASB, thus making your code less portable.
Lastly, I fear that you would run into concurrency issues, because it would not be trivial to avoid race conditions around who gets to put the deferred message into the queue.
If I were you I would code a simple scheduling thing myself, and then have it send Rebus messages periodically as needed.
Related
In below scenario, what would be the bahavior of Axon -
Command Bus recieved the command
It creates an event
However messaging infra is down (say kafka)
Does Axon has re-queing capability for event or any other alternative to handle this scenario.
If you're using Axon, you know it differentiates between Command, Event and Query messages. I'd suggest to be specific in your question which message type you want to retry.
However, I am going to make the assumption it's about events, as your stating Kafka.
If this is the case, I'd highly recommend reading the reference guide on the matter, as it states how you can uncouple Kafka publication from actual event storage in Axon.
Simply put, use a TrackingEventProcessor as the means to publish events on Kafka, as this will ensure a dedicate thread is used for publication instead of the same thread storing the event. Added, the TrackingEventProcessor can be replayed, thus "re-process" events.
Lets assume rebus could not publish message to rabbitmq or some other queue, what is the best practice to handle this exception.
I stopped rabbitmq service and rebus threw Aggregate exception. I can manually cacth this exception in try - catch block but is there a better solution to catch exceptions when such situations happened ?
First off: If you get an exception when initially sending/publishing a message (e.g. while handling a web request), there's nothing you can do, really. Sorry ;)
You should probably log - thoroughly - all the information you can, and then be sure to set up logging so that the information ends up in a file or in some other persistent log. And then you should have some kind of notification or a process in place that ensures that someone will at some point look at the log.
You should probably have this kind of logging in place, regardless of the type of work you do.
Depending on how important your information is, you could also set up some kind of retry mechanism (although you should be careful that you do not consume threads and too much memory while retrying). Also, since your web application should be able to be recycled at any time, you probably should not rely (too much) on retries.
You can do some things, though, in order to minimize the risk of ending up in a situation where you can't send/publish.
I can recommend that you use some kind of high-availability transport, like MSMQ (because it has local outgoing queues), RabbitMQ (with a shovel on each machine), or Azure Service Bus or Azure Storage Queues if you're in Azure.
Moreover - if you were using MSMQ, and you want to publish an event - I would recommend that you await bus.Send(theEvent) first, and then when you handle the message, you await bus.Publish(theEvent). This is because Rebus (with the MSMQ transport) needs to do a lookup in the subscription storage in order to get all subscribers for the given event. This is not a problem with RabbitMQ though, because Rebus will use Rabbit's topics to do pub/sub and will be just as safe as doing an ordinary send.
When you're sending/publishing from within a Rebus message handler, there is of course no problem, since the receive operation will be rolled back, and eventually the incoming message will end up in an error queue.
I hope that cast some light on the situation :)
I've joined a project that uses Jax-RS (and originally there was quite a bit of Spring-based Controller code in there too, but all URL handlers use Jax-RS now). Now we want to be able to fill in a queue of tasks that should be run with a small delay between each of them. The delay can be specified in ms. I've avoided Thread.sleep, as I've heard you should not manage threads manually in Java EE. Before I came in there was already a busy wait loop implemented.
I would like to switch this to an asynchronous background task. I could of course let the client poll the server with the given delay, and just have an AsyncResponse that can be resumed. But can the same AsyncResponse be resumed/suspended multiple times? The resource does have state, so it would be possible to drop the asynchrony completely and just do client polling to handle all of it.
A lot of example code for showing off asynchronous tasks use Thread.sleep. How bad is it to do this in a background task on an ExecutorService or something similar?
The point of the delay is to simulate human interaction, and post a long list of JMS messages to a queue but ensure that two listeners don't pick up and handle messages that depend on one another.
Is it easier/better to handle this on the client side rather than the server side? Writing some JavaScript that handles all the polling would be quite simple, so if this seems like a bad idea for handling on the server side, it's not that big a deal.
The tool is only going to be used by a single user, as it's a developer testing tool. Therefore we went for solving this on the client side, pushing the messages onto the queue through AJAX calls. This works fine for our purposes, but if anyone has a solution that might help someone else. Feel free to drop a new answer.
Problem: Some 300 candidates make a test using Flex. A test consist of some 100 exercises. After each exercise a .NET service is called to store the result. If a candidate finishes a test, all the data of his/her test is denormalized by Asp.NET. This denormalization can take some cpu and can take 5 to 10 seconds. Now, most of the times, some of the candidates have finished their test earlier than the rest, but still some 200 of them wait until their time is up. At that moment, 200 candidates finish their test and 200 sessions are denormalized at the same time. At this point, server load (cpu) is too high and cause calls to the webserver to go wrong. Now, instead of all these sessions being normalized concurrently, I would like to add them to a queue using MSMQ.
Question:
How do you process the Queue?
Do you start a separate thread in the Application_Start of global.asax that listens to the queue? If there are messages, they are dealt one at the time.
Is it necessary to do this in a separate thread? What if in the global.asax you just call a singleton for instance that starts listening to the queue? In what thread will this singleton run? (what's the thread that calls global.asax)
What are best practices to implement this? Links? Resources? Tutorials? Examples?
I don't like the idea, but could you put an exe on the root of your website, an exe that starts a process listening to the queue...
If you get a message out of the queue, do you remove it when you pull it out or do you remove it if denormalization for this session was successful? If you remove it when you pull it out and something goes wrong...
I could also create my own queue in memory, but restarting the webserver would empty the queue and a lot of sessions would end up not being normalized, so I guess this is really a bad idea.
Is MSMQ a good choice or are there better alternatives?
You could consider using a WCF-Service with MSMQ transport. I used this approach in an application that calculates commissions:
User completes asp.net wizard configuring calculation parameters
Calculation Job is sent to WCF-Service using MSMQ transport
Service transaction is completed as soon as Job entered MSMQ
New transaction scope is created for processing Job instances
One drawback is that the transaction will require MSDTC which will add some overhead when targeting MS SQL Server and even more when dealing with Oracle.
IDesign provides a lot of useful samples and best practices on WCF queueing.
Personally, I use a servicebus for scenario's like that. I know this sounds like an overkill, but I think the .net servicebusses are so good that they require the least amount of code written by you, because it's not easy to create a good scheduler for background processes without disturbing the threads of the application pool the webapp is running in. NServicebus and MassTransit are both good an well enough documented servicebuses for your scenario. With a servicebus, you have a framework that writes to msmq and listens to msmq in several apps connected by the messagequeue. The bus makes it easy for you to create a separate app that runs as a background service and is connected with your web-app by the message queue. When you use topself (included in nservicebus and masstransit), an installer/uninstaller for the seperate apps is automatically generated by the service bus.
Question: Why don't you like the idea of having a separate exe?
How do you process the Queue?
Do you start a separate thread in the Application_Start of global.asax
that listens to the queue? If there are messages, they are dealt one at
the time.
Is it necessary to do this in a separate thread? What if in the
global.asax you just call a singleton for instance that starts listening to
the queue? In what thread will this singleton run? (what's the thread that
calls global.asax)
[skip]
I don't like the idea, but could you put an exe on the root of your website, an exe that > starts a process listening to the queue...
Normally another program processes the queue - not ASP.NET. Either a windows service or an executable that you run under a scheduler (and there's no reason to put it in the root of your website).
If you get a message out of the queue, do you remove it when you pull
it out or do you remove it if denormalization for this session was
successful? If you remove it when you pull it out and something goes
wrong...
For critical work, you perform a transactional read. Items aren't removed from the queue until you commit your read operation, but while the transaction is open, no other process can get the item.
What are best practices to implement this? Links? Resources? Tutorials? Examples?
This tutorial is a good introduction and John Breakwell's blog is excellent and offers a lot of good links (including the ones in his easy-to-find sidebar "MSMQ Documentation").
I'm setting up a web service in Axis2 whose job it will be to take a bunch of XML and put it on to a queue to be processed later. I understand its possible to set up a client to invoke a synchronous web service asynchronously by creating a using an "invokeNonBlocking" operation on the "Call" instance. (ref http://onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/07/27/axis2.html?page=4)
So, my question is, is there any advantage to using an asynchronous web service in this case? It seems redundant because 1) the client isn't blocked and 2) the service has to accept and write the xml to queue regardless if it's synchronous or asynchronous
In my opinion, asynchronous is the appropriate way to go. A couple of things to consider:
Do you have multiple clients accessing this service at any given moment?
How often is this process occurring?
It does take a little more effort to implement the async methods. But I guarantee, in the end you will be much happier with the result. For one, you don't have to manage threading. Your primary concern might just be the volatility of the data in the que (i.e. race/deadlock conditions).
A "sync call" seems appropriate, I agree.
If the request from the client isn't time consuming, then I don't see the advantage either in making the call asynchronous. From what I understand of the situation in question here, the web-service will perform its "processing" against the request some time in the future.
If, on the contrary, the request had required a time consuming process, then an async call would haven been appropriate.
After ruminating some more about it, I'm thinking that the service should be asynchronous. The reason is that it would put the task of writing the data to the queue into a separate thread, thus lessening the chances of a timeout. It makes the process more complicated, but if I can avoid a timeout, then it's got to be done.