Tim Bain created AMQ-5361:
-----------------------------

             Summary: Allow for multiple slow consumer strategies to be used 
together
                 Key: AMQ-5361
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMQ-5361
             Project: ActiveMQ
          Issue Type: Improvement
          Components: Broker
    Affects Versions: 5.9.0
            Reporter: Tim Bain


AMQ-378 allowed a pluggable policy for aborting consumers that were slow, where 
a consumer was slow if the broker was holding a number of messages for it equal 
to the consumer's prefetch buffer size, in addition to the same number of 
messages already in the consumer's prefetch buffer.  AMQ-4621 added the ability 
to use a different slow consumer strategy and provided one other strategy, to 
consider a consumer slow if it hasn't acked a message in a certain amount of 
time.

These strategies each has certain things it protects well against while not 
protecting against others, but I want the ability to be protected from all of 
them, by being able to select multiple SlowConsumerStrategy implementations for 
my needs.  This would also allow us to use future SlowConsumerStrategy 
implementations alongside the two that exist today.

In the short term, this might be as simple as turning 
PolicyEntry.slowConsumerStrategy into a Set<SlowConsumerStrategy> and 
performing all actions on each entry in the set.

In the longer term, we should think about whether it would be better to break 
the SlowConsumerStrategy interface apart to pull out a 
SlowConsumerIdentificationStrategy interface that would let us pass a consumer 
to a method and have it tell us whether it considers the consumer to be slow 
(calling each of those in turn, since that's really what we'd want to have a 
multiplicity > 1), and a separate SlowConsumerHandlerStrategy interface that 
would let us choose what action to take in response when we figure out that a 
consumer is slow (which could probably have a multiplicity of 1).  If the 
implementer chooses not to do this longer-term refactoring as part of resolving 
this issue, then please split it out into a separate JIRA to capture it for the 
future.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to