Hi Christian,
We need to keep async/sync properties at the level of the JMS
component itself as this behavior belongs to the way we can use a MOM
or ActiveMQ. Nevertheless, in some case, this behavior could be
changed (but that means that documentation should be clear on that)
that async becomes sync if we have other pieces of the camel route
designed as sync. But be careful to avoid to introduce too much
confusion in the head of the users due to lack of claritity and
information.
Regards,
Charles
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Christian Schneider
<ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote:
> Hi Claus,
>
> without changing anything in camel wouldn´t a simple change in the route
> also work?
>
> from("activemq:queue:inbox?synchronous=true")
> .threads()
> .to("jetty:http://0.0.0.0:9432/myapp";)
> .to("log:result?groupSize=10", "mock:result");
>
> So I ask myself if we really need async support in the jms consumer if we
> can support the scenario using a well known dsl element.
>
> Christian
>
>
> Am 09.08.2011 14:25, schrieb Claus Ibsen:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> See ticket
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-3632
>>
>> Take a look at the following routes
>>
>> from("activemq:queue:inbox?synchronous=true")
>> .to("jetty:http://0.0.0.0:9432/myapp";)
>> .to("log:result?groupSize=10", "mock:result");
>>
>> from("jetty:http://0.0.0.0:9432/myapp";)
>> .delay(100)
>> .transform(body().prepend("Bye "));
>>
>>
>> Its a fairly simple flow JMS -> JETTY -> MOCK
>>
>> The JMS consumer will by default be in synchronous mode. Ticket
>> CAMEL-3632 is to optimize this by supporting asynchronous routing if
>> the JMS consumer is *not* transactional, and *not* sending back a
>> reply message.
>>
>> So the scenarios is for high performance one way messaging.
>>
>> The 2nd route above simulate a little processing time, which takes 100
>> millis.
>>
>> If we run a test where we send 1000 messages to the queue. How long
>> time would it take to process those messages synchronously? Of course
>> roughly 1000 * 0.1 sec = 100 sec. On my laptop it takes:
>> Took: 1 minute (105393 millis)
>>
>> Now imagine we set synchronous=false on the JMS consumer so it runs
>> asynchronously. How fast would it then go? Well lets try
>> Took: 10.742 seconds (10742 millis)
>>
>> That is a lot fast, well of couse its about 10x faster, since the JMS
>> consumer is not blocked waiting for the JETTY reply.
>> However the messages is now not processed in sequence, that is the cost.
>>
>> To note in both scenarios this was done with 1 JMS consumer thread. I
>> did not enable concurrentConsumers. So with the async routing engine
>> we could scale and utilize the CPU resources better.
>>
>> This seems like a great addition. And if we add this, we should add
>> some documentation with the pros/cons for using this.
>>
>> My question is what would a sensitive default setting be? Should we
>> let the JMS consumer be kept as synchronous by default, to keep it
>> fully backwards compatible. Then end users must manually set
>> synchronous=false on the JMS endpoint to enable that.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
>
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
>
>
