If you send ordered messages to a node and listener on receiving side has
not yet been added then timeout is still sufficient to clean up buffered
messages.
--Yakov
2017-01-10 23:36 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>:
> Yakov,
>
> I was actually asking about the public API for messaging
> (IgniteMessaging#sendOrdered
> method). Here is the JavaDoc:
>
> * The {@code timeout} parameter specifies how long an out-of-order message
> will stay in a queue,
> * waiting for messages that are ordered ahead of it to arrive. If timeout
> expires, then all ordered
> * messages that have not arrived before this message will be skipped. When
> (and if) expired messages
> * actually do arrive, they will be ignored.
>
> I remember that we indeed had this scenario possible a while ago, but then
> implementation of ordered messaging was reworked and 'out-of-order message'
> can't happen anymore. Is this correct? If so, I think the timeout should be
> removed from the API.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Val, timeout still makes sense for task sessions. It is possible that all
> > jobs mapped to node have been completed, but node still receives
> > attributes. Attributes are sent in ordered messages. It may happen so
> that
> > node may start processing jobs for that task again and this way all the
> > attributes will be available. If task timeout elapses then messages get
> > cleared. Please let me know if you still have questions.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2017-01-06 1:02 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Anyone knows what is the purpose of the timeout for
> > > IgniteMessaging#sendOrdered method?
> > >
> > > void sendOrdered(@Nullable Object topic, Object msg, long timeout);
> > >
> > > It seems to me that in current implementation messages are always
> ordered
> > > on communication level. I.e. if you send messages 1, 2 and 3, there is
> no
> > > way to receive 3 before 2. The only difference between ordered and
> > > unordered messages is that ordered are processed one after another in a
> > > single thread, while unordered can be processed in parallel.
> > >
> > > Having said that, timeout for ordered messages doesn't make much sense
> to
> > > me. Is there a scenario that I'm missing?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> >
>
