My problematic seem to be simple, but I haven't find yet a way to solve it...
I have a legacy system which is working and a new system which will replace it. This is only rest webservices call, so I'm using simple bridge endpoint on http service.
To ensure the iso-functional run, I want to put them behind a camel route dispatching message to both system but returning only the response of the legacy one and log the response of both system to be sure there are running in same way...
I create this route :
from("servlet:proxy?matchOnUriPrefix=true")
.streamCaching()
.setHeader("CamelHttpMethod", header("CamelHttpMethod"))
.to("log:com.mylog?showAll=true&multiline=true&showStreams=true")
.multicast()
.to(urlServer1 + "?bridgeEndpoint=true")
.to(urlServer2 + "?bridgeEndpoint=true")
.to("log:com.mylog?showAll=true&multiline=true&showStreams=true")
;
It works to call each services and to log messages, but response are in a mess...
If the first server doesn't respond, the second is not call, if the second respond an error, only that error is send back to client...
Any Idea ?
You can check for some more details in multicast docs http://camel.apache.org/multicast.html
Default behaviour of multicast (your case) is:
parallelProcessing is false so routes are called one by one
To correctly implement your case you need probably:
add error handling for each external service call so exception will not stop correct processing
configure or implement some aggregator strategy and put it to the strategyRef so you can combine results from all calls to the single multicast result
Related
I'm using Symfony 4.2 and have one message to dispatch via messenger component which is a notification that should be sent via a few channels (for example SMS and email). I'm wondering how to make these senders independent (for example first channel fails and throw an exception) - how to make a try to send independent via the second sender? Currently, when one of the senders in the chain fails the rest can't make a try of delivering notification.
Catching exception on the sender level seems not to be a good solution, because returning envelop causes that it will be stamped as sent what is not true.
I've started to make message per channel to keep sentStamp convention, but It seems that should be one message and few channels listening for one message (even configuration indicates to that with senders keyword):
routing:
'App\Messenger\Command\Notification\SendSomeInformation':
senders:
- App\Messenger\Sender\Notification\EmailSender
- App\Messenger\Sender\Notification\SmsSender
There is some good approach for such problem?
One possibility would be to configure two different transports, and assign each handler to different transports, so if one of them fails and dequeues the message, the other can still have a chance to run.
# config/packages/messenger.yaml
transports:
async1:
# dsn
async2:
# dsn
...
routing:
'App\Messenger\Command\Notification\SendSomeInformation': [async1, async2]
Restricting handlers to transports can be done either in code or config, choose what works better for you.
In config:
# config/services.yaml
App\Messenger\Sender\Notification\SmsSender:
tags:
- { name: 'messenger.message_handler', from_transport: 'async1'}
Is it possible to restore a 1:1 conversation?
The Conversation object in the Skype SDK seems to have such functionality. You should be able to restore a conversation by passing a href to it. But when I pass a href string as parameter to createConversation it throws the following error:
Error: ResourceNotFound
at Error (native)
at Exception (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:3346:31)
at UCWA.get (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:15141:31)
at init (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:40672:50)
at new Conversation (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:41826:25)
at createConversationModel (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:41963:36)
at BaseModel.createConversation (http://.../SkypeSDK.js:42037:48)
The lines can be a little bit off. I modified the createConveration method to pass the href to Conversation.
The href string has this format:
/ucwa/oauth/v1/applications/xxxxxxxxxxxx/communication/conversations/xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx
We have the following situation:
One site has the normal SDK and waits for incoming calls. If you accept the call you should be redirected to a site with the SDK+CC and answer the call. Now we are stuck at how to pass the call. We also tried with it getConversation, but it doesn't return the last incoming conversation.
Once you accept a call on one endpoint you can transfer it to another endpoint. However you cannot accept a call and then re-answer it on a different endpoint. Also, answering the call starts the process of connecting media so that endpoint has effectively picked up the call.
The href of each conversation is unique per application, and in your scenario you will have one for each site. These cannot be shared between applications.
I'll try provide as much information as possible:
No error message.
The instance stays in the "ready service instances".
The receive location has the same parameters (except URI, the three polling queries, user account/pw and receive pipeline) as another receive location that points to another database/table which works.
The pipeline is waiting for the correct schema.
The port surface and receive location are both waiting for the correct schema.
In my test example, there are only 10 lines being returned.
The message, which contains those 10 lines, validates against the schema.
I tried to let the instance alone to no avail - 30+ minutes - and no change in its condition.
I had also tried suspending and then resuming it which then places the instance in the "dehydrated orchestrations" list. Again, with no error message.
I'm able to get the message by looking at the body of the message that's in the "ready to run" service. (This is the message that validates versus the schema I use in Visual Studio.)
How might something like this arise?
Stupid question, but I have to ask... Is the corresponding host instance running?
I'm relatively new to Biztalk and I'm having a bit of hassle with this:
I have built a simple orchestration, hooked it up correctly to a receive port, I'm using the correct schema and map and the orchestration seems to be subscribing ok.
However, when the file I want to process gets picked up at the port I'm getting the 'could not be routed because no subscribers were found' error.
I ran a HAT query and can see the orch has an active subsription to the correct thing, is there anything else I can check on this?
Is your port hooked directly to the orchestration or is the orchestration picking the message up from the message box? Has the orchestration receive been set to Activate?
What does your subscription filter look like for the orchestration?
As a futher test:
a) create a sendport (FILE)
b) add a filter to it; BTS.ReceivePortName =
c) grab the resulting file - it should be the XML thats produced by your Custom PL
d) Use this file with a receive location using an XML Receive PL and see how your orchestration reacts to
This will at least rule out a Pipeline issue...
HTH
Check your pipeline is XMLReceive. This will promote the MessageType property and hopefully your orchestration will subscribe successfully.
Find the failed message in HAT and look at the body of the message. Copy it out and then run validate it against the schema of the message you are expecting. If it doesn't validate then you have set your flat file disassembler up incorrectly.
For a user application (not a driver) using WinUSB, I use WinUsb_ControlTransfer in combination with overlapped I/O to asynchronously send a control message. Is it possible to cancel the asynchronous operation? WinUsb_AbortPipe works for all other endpoints but gives an 'invalid parameter' error when the control endpoint is passed (0x00 or 0x80 as the pipe address). I also tried CancelIo and CancelIoEx but both give an 'invalid handle' error on the WinUSB handle. The only related information I could find is on http://www.winvistatips.com/winusb-bugchecks-t335323.html, but offers no solution. Is this just impossible?
Probably not useful to the original asker any more, but in case anyone else comes across this: you can use CancelIo() or CancelIoEx() with the file handle that you originally passed in to WinUsb_Initialize().
This is similar to how the documentation of WinUsb_GetOverlappedResult says:
This function is like the Win32 API routine, GetOverlappedResult, with one difference—instead of passing a file handle that is returned from CreateFile, the caller passes an interface handle that is returned from WinUsb_Initialize. The caller can use either API routine, if the appropriate handle is passed. The WinUsb_GetOverlappedResult function extracts the file handle from the interface handle and then calls GetOverlappedResult.