Indeed it is.
On 16 Aug 2011, at 10:12 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> Is your socket endpoint set up to be async?
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sure
>>
>> You can of course solve what I've described many ways, but I'll
>> explain using 3 routes as that's what I used.
>>
>> This first route is the main route I mentioned earlier, so you send
>> your socket messages here and it's multicast to both the aggregator
>> and to the socket.
>>
>> from("direct:socketRequestRoute").multicast().to("direct:requestResponseAggregator",
>> "someOutboundSocketEndpoint");
>>
>>
>> This next route will aggregate, both requests and responses are sent
>> here as you envisaged.
>> from("direct:requestResponseAggregator").
>> .aggregate(header("someCorrellationId"),
>> requestResponseAggregator)
>> .completionSize(2)
>> .completionTimeout(5000)
>> .to("direct:requestResponse"); //Here you can send the
>> "aggregated" message, in my case it's only the response I forward
>> unless there's a timeout, then I forward the request of course.
>>
>> Finally the route that consumes the socket responses.
>> from(someInboundSocketEndpoint).processRef("headerEnricher").to("direct:requestResponseAggregator");
>> //this headerEnricher doesn't have to be a processor, you have many
>> options to add a header.
>>
>> If that's not clear feel free to ask.
>>
>> Taariq
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:30 PM, James Carman
>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> Care to share an example? I'm not picturing it.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Taariq Levack <taar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi James
>>>>
>>>> I did that too for what it's worth.
>>>> I send the message to a route that forwards to both the aggregator and to
>>>> the socket.
>>>> When the response comes in I use an enricher to add the ID to the headers
>>>> and then forward to the aggregator.
>>>>
>>>> Taariq
>>>>
>>>> On 16 Aug 2011, at 8:55 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Willem,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your help. I don't think this is doing exactly what I
>>>>> need, though. The real trick here is the asynchronous nature of the
>>>>> "server" on the other end of this situation. I thought about using an
>>>>> aggregator to make sure the response gets matched up with the request
>>>>> using a correlation id. The aggregator wouldn't aggregate multiple
>>>>> responses together into one, it would just make sure it matches the
>>>>> correct response with its request. Does this sound like a valid
>>>>> approach? If so, how the heck do I go about it? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Willem Jiang <willem.ji...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Camel async process engine already provides the way that you want.
>>>>>> You can take a look at the camel-cxf code[1][2] for some example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/components/camel-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/cxf/CxfConsumer.java?view=markup
>>>>>> [2]http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/camel/trunk/components/camel-cxf/src/main/java/org/apache/camel/component/cxf/CxfProducer.java?view=markup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/7/11 1:29 AM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Zbarcea Hadrian<hzbar...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi James,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope I understand your scenario correctly. Here are a few thoughts. I
>>>>>>>> assume want to use camel-netty [1] to send messages to your sever (if
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have your own code that does that, you can use it too, but you'd have
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> write your own Processor or Component). Iiuic, your scenario is
>>>>>>>> converting a
>>>>>>>> 2x in-only to a 1x in-out async mep. You should then treat your
>>>>>>>> exchange as
>>>>>>>> an async in-out and let your framework (Camel) decompose it and
>>>>>>>> compose it
>>>>>>>> back again. I would not keep threads blocked so I believe your best
>>>>>>>> bet is
>>>>>>>> using the Camel async messaging [2] and Futures (look at the examples
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> asyncSend* and asyncCallback*). The issue is that Camel is stateless so
>>>>>>>> you'll need a correlationId, which you must have already and something
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> keep your state. A good bet would be jms [3], or you could write your
>>>>>>>> own.
>>>>>>>> If you used jms you would need to use both a correlationId and a
>>>>>>>> replyTo
>>>>>>>> queue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from("jms:request-queue").to("netty:output?=correlationId");
>>>>>>>> from("netty:input).to("jms:replyTo-queue")
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps a bit more information might be appropriate here. Eventually,
>>>>>>> I'd like to "expose" this route via web services (using CXF of
>>>>>>> course). So, I would need to either block the request thread, waiting
>>>>>>> for a reply or perhaps check out the new Servlet 3.0 asynchronous
>>>>>>> processing stuff (I'm thinking this might help us get more done with
>>>>>>> less http request threads) to do more of a continuation thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We already have a correlation id. The "protocol" requires one and the
>>>>>>> server process just echos it back in the response message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may have to play a bit with the correlationId and if you cannot use
>>>>>>>> the same you can do a second transformation/correlation using a
>>>>>>>> claim-check
>>>>>>>> sort of pattern. If you don't want to use jms you can implement your
>>>>>>>> own (in
>>>>>>>> memory) persistence and correlation. You can also use a resequencer
>>>>>>>> [4] if
>>>>>>>> you want to enforce the order. If you use asyncCallback, you get the
>>>>>>>> replies
>>>>>>>> when they become available, and you can control that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think a resequencer is necessary. I don't want to guarantee
>>>>>>> the ordering. I'm mostly interested in throughput here. So, if a
>>>>>>> message comes in after another, but it can be processed faster, so be
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's an interesting scenario, I'll definitely give it more thought,
>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>> hope this helps.
>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been very helpful. Thank you for taking the time!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Willem
>>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>> Web: http://www.fusesource.com
>>>>>> Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
>>>>>> http://jnn.javaeye.com (Chinese)
>>>>>> Twitter: willemjiang
>>>>>> Weibo: willemjiang
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
