Hi Dan,
I have looked into ClientImpl and JMSConduit. I think the code you added
should work.
The JMSConduit.onMessage is called from DefaultMessageListenerContainer
which uses a spring TaskExecutor. Additionally it can be configured
to use several threads to listen on jms messages. So I think there is no
need for a workqueue.
Additionally ClientImpl uses another executor.
Btw. is it really necessary to do different things for sync and async?
Of course the ClientImpl has to support a sync and async mode but I think
the transports could be made completely async. Does the Exchange even
has to know if it is synchronous?
About your question regarding the wait. I would like to remove the wait
and also the config option receiveTimeout. If the Client can do this
then that is the better solution.
There is one thing we have to keep in mind though. The sendExchange
method adds an entry to the correlationMap. This has to be removed after
the timeout. Normally this is done after the wait.
I guess there is no easy solution for this problem. Generally I would
suggest doing the whole correlation already in the client. So we could
keep this out of the transport code.
Another thing are the Executors and Workqueues. The current spring
versions already provide this functionality. Do you think it is possible
to switch to
the spring implementations and remove this code from cxf?
Greetings
Christian
Daniel Kulp schrieb:
Christian,
When you get some time, can you look at what I've done in the JMS transport to
make sure it's all OK and doesn't introduce some massive scalability issue?
Basically, I now call the message observer directly from the
onMessage(JMSMessage) call. This means its called on the thread that the
JMS queue provides instead of from the CXF calling thread. Right now, if
it's a synchronous invoke, I left the "wait()" in place on the main thread,
but that's really not needed. It could return immediately as the
ClientImpl will then wait if it's supposed to be synchronous. I mostly left
it there due to the jmsTemplate.getReceiveTimeout() thing. If we return,
the timeout would need to be configured on the client itself, which might
not be a bad thing. Not really sure. Maybe the default could be
RECEIVE_TIMEOUT_NO_WAIT and only wait on that main thread if it's set
otherwise? I don't really know, not my area of expertise.
I guess my main concern is if it's OK to process the response on the JMS
provided thread. Is that part of a thread pool or similar? If not, we'll
need to throw it on a workqueue. That's easy enough to do, but I wanted to
hear from you first.
Thanks!
--
Christian Schneider
---
http://www.liquid-reality.de
