Since it is a part of the Message processor itself; Why can't we stick to <parameter name="throttle">true</parameter>?
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:32 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:15 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> If everyone is okay. I can go ahead with the implementation. The below is >> the property that will be introduced. >> >> <parameter name="throttle.message.processing">true</parameter> >> >> Users can use the property to decide what they want to do when the >> message processor is triggered. >> >> 1. Consume all the messages at once >> 2. Consume messages at the rate in which message processor is triggered >> > > Any idea on the aforementioned property ? If you all are okay I can go > ahead and implement the feature. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Shafreen >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:18 PM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I thought of simply using the time interval that is there for Message >>> Processor. >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:04 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < >>> vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What about the configuration of the interval? >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:53 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> How about a property name as below? we can make it false by default >>>>> which would give us the current behaviour. >>>>> >>>>> <parameter name="throttle.message.processing">true</parameter> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:41 AM prabath <prabathm...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 to support both behaviors. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:26 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Vanji, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:51 PM Vanjikumaran Sivajothy < >>>>>>> vanjikuma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let’s consider the current behaviors as a default. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adding additional Optional property may control to make sure the >>>>>>>> backward comparability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay. We can add a new parameter, that way we can have both >>>>>>> behaviors as you mentioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:46 AM Shafreen <anfar.shafr...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Current behaviour of the Message Forwarding Processor is to >>>>>>>>> consume all the messages at once. For instance, say, the Message >>>>>>>>> Forwarding >>>>>>>>> Processor is configured to run every 10 seconds and the Message store >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> filled with 5 messages within the 10 second gap. In such a situation, >>>>>>>>> Message Forwarding Processor consumes all 5 messages and try to send >>>>>>>>> it to >>>>>>>>> back-end as fast as possible. I think this behaviour is not optimal. >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> purpose of Message Forwarding Processor it to send messages to the >>>>>>>>> back-end >>>>>>>>> in a controlled rate. So that the back-end server can handle the >>>>>>>>> load. IMO, >>>>>>>>> ideal behaviour should be to consume one message at a time and try to >>>>>>>>> send >>>>>>>>> it to the back-end as per the configured interval. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, if the configured interval is a cron expression, in such >>>>>>>>> cases the current behaviour is correct. Because cron expressions >>>>>>>>> could have >>>>>>>>> very large intervals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think it is best to keep the current behaviour for >>>>>>>>> cron intervals but change it for normal intervals as aforementioned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WDYT ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Shafreen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Prabath Ariyarathna. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Vanji >>>> >>> -- Best Regards, Vanji
