You're right in that I must set a name on my containers...but not the
way you show. The "name" attribute of the <container> tag appears to be
the same thing as the "name" attribute of the <bean> tag, which is only
slightly different in purpose than the "id" attribute.
It doesn't do any good to specify the "name" attribute of the
<container> tag, because what I really need to do is specify the "name"
property of the container object itself (not the name that Spring uses).
In short, I must set the "name" property using a <property> element
(which I've done in the XML in my original e-mail).
At least that's my understanding of it...feel free to tell me if I'm off
here...
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I think the name of the container is necessary so that ServiceMix can
route the message to the right component in the right container.
Try setting a name on your containers:
<container id="jbi" name="myFirstContainer" ...>
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Craig Walls wrote:
I've got a simple ServiceMix example that I'm using as a
demonstration of using Spring with ServiceMix. It works wonderfully
when using ST flows (and I've had some success with SEDA flows).
Here's what the configuration looks like:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE beans PUBLIC "-//SPRING//DTD BEAN//EN"
"http://www.springframework.org/dtd/spring-beans.dtd";>
<beans>
<container id="jbi">
<components>
<component id="billing"
service="bar"
class="com.habuma.telco.sm.components.BillingServiceImpl">
<property name="frame">
<bean class="com.habuma.telco.sm.ComponentFrame">
<constructor-arg value="BILLING"/>
</bean>
</property>
</component>
</components>
</container>
<bean id="smClient"
class="org.servicemix.client.DefaultServiceMixClient">
<constructor-arg ref="jbi"/>
</bean>
<bean id="clientUI"
class="com.habuma.servicemix.ClientUI">
<property name="serviceMixClient" ref="smClient" />
</bean>
</beans>
There's a lot of extra stuff going on here so that each service (and
the client) has a JFrame so that I can visually follow what's going
on. But in summary, the BillingServiceImpl extends ComponentSupport
and the "clientUI" uses the "smClient" bean to send messages to the
"billing" component. This works like a champ.
But for grins I decided to give cluster flows a spin. Here are my two
new configuration files (one for the client and one for another
container that contains the billing service):
=============== CLIENT CONFIGURATION===============
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE beans PUBLIC "-//SPRING//DTD BEAN//EN"
"http://www.springframework.org/dtd/spring-beans.dtd";>
<beans>
<container id="jbi">
<!-- MAGIC TO MAKE THE CONTAINER PART OF A CLUSTER -->
<property name="flowName" value="cluster"/>
<property name="name" value="client"/>
</container>
<bean id="smClient"
class="org.servicemix.client.DefaultServiceMixClient">
<constructor-arg ref="jbi"/>
</bean>
<bean id="clientUI"
class="com.habuma.servicemix.ClientUI">
<property name="serviceMixClient" ref="smClient" />
</bean>
</beans>
======= SERVICE CONTAINER CONFIGURATION======
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE beans PUBLIC "-//SPRING//DTD BEAN//EN"
"http://www.springframework.org/dtd/spring-beans.dtd";>
<beans>
<container id="jbi">
<!-- MAGIC TO MAKE THE CONTAINER PART OF A CLUSTER -->
<property name="flowName" value="cluster"/>
<property name="name" value="services"/>
<components>
<component id="billing"
service="bar"
class="com.habuma.telco.sm.components.BillingServiceImpl">
<property name="frame">
<bean class="com.habuma.telco.sm.ComponentFrame">
<constructor-arg value="BILLING"/>
</bean>
</property>
</component>
</components>
</container>
</beans>
I know that this *SORTA* works because: (1) When I fire up the client
by itself I get an appropriate error when sending the message
indicating that the "billing" service isn't found. (2) When I fire up
the service container, the client log file goes through a flurry of
activity indicating that the client is being alerted to the existence
of the "billing" service. (3) When both the client and the service
containers are running, the client can successfully send
messages...at least from the client's perspective it's successful.
But the "billing" service never receives the message. The only thing
of interest in the log files is a message on both ends saying
"WARNING: No remote broker name available!". This message appears
during the flurry of activity when the two containers sync up.
So, what am I possibly doing wrong? Is there something I'm missing to
specify the remote broker name? Any help will be greatly appreciated.
If I've not provided enough info, please let me know and I'll send
whatever you need to help figure this one out.
