sure:)
Taking a real business system (label system) as an example, when
a label object is changed in the label system, an event
notification needs to be initiated to inform the label search system
of the change information, so that the label search system can update
the search index.
This is a classic weak dependency that requires message decoupling. Using the
classic solution, we need to write code to manage the mq infrastructure,
assemble change objects, and send change messages on the message sender side;
on the message receiver side, we also need to write code to parse the change
objects and process the change messages. If you need features like extactly
once consuming, it's even more cumbersome, and inevitably couples
infrastructure management code and business code.
With QSF, we only need to declare the business interface and implement business
logic, and annotate the interface implementation class with @QSFProvider, and
annotate @QSFConsumer at the interface reference. A mq-based cross-system
asynchronous call can be done like a local method call, like this:
// LabelService.java
public interface LabelService {
void labelModified(LabelInfoDTO labelDTO);
}
// LabelServiceImpl.java
@QSFProvider(topic = "topic_label", consumerId = "cid_topic_label", tags =
"label_modified")
@Slf4j
public class LabelServiceImpl implements LabelService {
@Override
public void labelModified(LabelInfoDTO labelDTO) {
//business logic
}
}
//LabelManager.java
@QSFConsumer(topic = "topic_label", tag = "label_modified")
private LabelService labelService;
public boolean updateLable(LabelInfoDTO labelDTO){
// main process:update label logic
...
...
// edge process:inform label modified
labelService.labelModified(labelDTO);
}
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????:
"dev"
<[email protected]>;
????????: 2022??3??16??(??????) ????8:23
??????: "dev"<[email protected]>;
????: Re: [DISCUSS] RIP-35 queue service framework(QSF)
Could you please provide some demos to show how we use QSFProducer/Consumer?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:49 PM Jason.Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am sorry that the RIP mail format is incorrect, and i write a
> well-formed google doc version here:
>
>
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10wSe24TAls7J9y0Ql4MYo73FX8g1aX9guoxBxzQhJgg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RIP 35 queue service framework(QSF)
>
> Status
>
> ??&nbsp; Current
State: Proposed
>
> ??&nbsp; Authors:
booom( booom (jason) ?? GitHub)
>
> ??&nbsp; Shepherds:
yukon( zhouxinyu (yukon) ?? GitHub)
>
> ??&nbsp; Mailing List
discussion: [email protected]
>
> ??&nbsp; Pull Request:
>
> ??&nbsp;
Released:&nbsp;
>
> Background &amp; Motivation
>
> What do we need to do
>
> ??&nbsp; Will we add a
new module? Yes.
>
> ??&nbsp; Will we add
new APIs? No.
>
> ??&nbsp; Will we add
new feature? Yes.
>
> Why should we do that
>
> ??&nbsp; Are there any
problems of our current project?
>
> The current mq client API is intrusive, to send message or consume
> message, we should code to manage the mq infrastructure, and mixed it up
> with our business logic codes.
>
> ??&nbsp; What can we
benefit proposed changes?
>
> 1. Encapsulate mq client API to support
method invoking style usage.
>
> 2. The encapsulation is easily extensible,
to support
> idempotence/eventually consistent/ fluid control extensions and so on.
>
> 3. Isolate the mq client manage code and the
business logic code, to
> help mq users improve their systems?? maintainability.
>
> Goals
>
> ??&nbsp; What problem
is this proposal designed to solve?
>
> Unobtrusive mq client usage, and easily extensible to support
> idempotence/eventually consistent/ fluid control extensions and so on.
>
> ??&nbsp; To what
degree should we solve the problem?
>
> 100%.
>
> Non-Goals
>
> ??&nbsp; What problem
is this proposal NOT designed to solve?
>
> 1. Add new features to classics mq client.
>
> 2. Affect compatibility.
>
> ??&nbsp; Are there any
limits of this proposal?
>
> Only QSF(queue service framework) users will benefit.
>
> Changes
>
> Architecture
>
> To simplify a process, we need to consider what information is essential
> and must be provided by users to execute this process? How to properly
> organize this information so that it is most user-friendly?&nbsp;
>
>
> Along this thinking path, we have extracted the necessary parameters for
> mq calls and organized them into the java annotations @QSFConsumer and
> @QSFProvider. After that, through the extension support of spring container
> in each stage of bean life cycle, we can process @QSFConsumer @QSFProvider
> annotation in BeanPostProcessor, extract method invocation information to
> method invocation information object MethodInvokeInfo and send it out, and
> locate it through MethodInvokeInfo at the message receiving endpoint. The
> bean where the call is made, the method where it is located, the parameters
> used, and then the method is called by reflection.
>
>
>
>
>
> Interface Design/Change
>
> ??&nbsp; Method
signature changes
>
> ??&nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; method name
>
> ??&nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; parameter list
>
> ??&nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; return value
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp; Method
behavior changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp; CLI command
changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp; Log format or
content changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> &nbsp;Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan
>
> ??&nbsp; Are backward
and forward compatibility taken into
> consideration?
>
> Yes.
>
> ??&nbsp; Are there
deprecated APIs?
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp; How do we do
migration?
>
> Upgrade normally, no additional migration required.
>
> Implementation Outline
>
> We will implement the proposed changes by 1 phase. (QSF is implemented and
> works well in our project)
>
> Phase 1
>
>
> Complete the QSF mq client encapsulation.
>
>
>
> Complete the QSF idempotency support
>
>
> Rejected Alternatives
>
> There are no other alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------&nbsp;????????&nbsp;------------------
> ??????:
>
"Jason.Chen"
>
<
> [email protected]&gt;;
> ????????:&nbsp;2022??3??16??(??????) ????12:55
> ??????:&nbsp;"dev"<[email protected]&gt;;
>
> ????:&nbsp;[DISCUSS] RIP-35 queue service framework(QSF)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Status
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Current State: Proposed
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Authors: booom( booom (jason)
?? GitHub)
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Shepherds: yukon( zhouxinyu
(yukon) ?? GitHub)
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Mailing List discussion:
> [email protected]
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Pull Request:
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Released:
<relased_version&gt;
>
> Background &amp; Motivation
>
> What do we need to do
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Will we add a new module? Yes.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Will we add new APIs? No.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Will we add new feature? Yes.
>
> Why should we do that
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Are there any problems of our
current project?
>
> The current mq client API is intrusive, to send message or consume
> message, we should code to manage the mq infrastructure, and mixed it up
> with our business logic codes.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; What can we benefit proposed
changes?
>
> 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Encapsulate mq client API to support
method invoking
> style usage.
>
> 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; The encapsulation is easily extensible,
to support
> idempotence/eventually consistent/ fluid control extensions and so on.
>
> 3.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Isolate the mq client manage code and
the business
> logic code, to help mq users improve their systems?? maintainability.
>
> &nbsp;
>
> Goals
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; What problem is this proposal
designed to solve?
>
> Unobtrusive mq client usage, and easily extensible to support
> idempotence/eventually consistent/ fluid control extensions and so on.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; To what degree should we solve
the problem?
>
> 100%.
>
> Non-Goals
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; What problem is this proposal
NOT designed to
> solve?
>
> 1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Add new features to classics mq client.
>
> 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Affect compatibility.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Are there any limits of this
proposal?
>
> Only QSF(queue service framework) users will benefit.
>
> Changes
>
> Architecture
>
> Interface Design/Change
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Method signature changes
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
method name
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
parameter list
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
return value
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Method behavior changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; CLI command changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Log format or content changes
>
> Nothing.
>
> &nbsp;Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Are backward and forward
compatibility taken
> into consideration?
>
> Yes.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Are there deprecated APIs?
>
> Nothing.
>
> ??&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; How do we do migration?
>
> Upgrade normally, no additional migration required.
>
> Implementation Outline
>
> We will implement the proposed changes by 1 phase. (QSF is implemented and
> works well in our project)
>
> Phase 1
>
> Complete the QSF mq client encapsulation.
>
> Complete the QSF idempotency support
>
> Rejected Alternatives
>
> There are no other alternatives.
