bsnyder wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marek Psiuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear ServiceMix Users,
>>
>>
>> Together with my friend I'm working on a subject of monitoring a JBI
>> compliant ESB. It is actually a subject of out Master Thesis :>. So we
>> were focusing on ServiceMix and OpenESB implementations. At the
>> beginning we were total noobs ;) (maybe we still are) but we cracked
>> through the JBI specification and analyzed how things look in
>> ServiceMix and OpenESB.
>> After some time of research we have decided to create a solution that
>> would be 100% (or close to that :>) JBI compliant and would not assume
>> anything about specific mechanisms (either SMix or OpenESB)
>> [Unfortunately that was not truly possible :|. For example SMix has
>> this not JBI compliant 'processInbound' method which is often used in
>> DeliveryChannelImpl]. We decided to go AOP way. We created an sniffy
>> aspect which intercepts everything that goes through JBI's
>> DeliveryChannel implementations. It turned out that it was quite easy.
>> We went a step further and provided a mechanism of correlation
>> MessageExchanges that are related - in fact it is very similiar to
>> ServiceMix's correlationId (we examined ThreadLocal's oriented
>> implementaion of it).
>> So at the end of the day we have a mechanism that without a slight
>> code modification of JBI Container itself is able to intercept all
>> MessageExchanges flying through the components. At the beginning of
>> our work the assumption was that our solution should be inline with
>> the idea of Application Response Measurement
>> (http://www.opengroup.org/arm). We studied the ARM specification and
>> decided that it is far to complicated for our purposes but we can use
>> the concepts invented there !! An Idea of profiling tool for JBI came
>> up !!
>>
>> We were wondering how the JBI profiling session could look like and
>> what would be most useful ?? We thought that it would be interesting
>> if at the end our GUI would be able to draw something like Sequence
>> Diagram (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/CheckEmail.png).
>> The entities that would be on such diagrams could be specific
>> endpoints in componets(BC and SE). Each arrow would be connected with
>> some ME exchange and would be described by the time that elapsed and
>> maybe some other information (we are still working on it).
>>
>>
>> So why I am telling You all this things. We decided that in scope of
>> our MasterT we want to make same useful tool that could be really
>> handy for both Developers and Users of JBI Containers. My question is:
>> Could such JBI Profiling Tool be useful ?
>>
>> I am aware of ServiceMix's visualizations: dotViewEndpointListener and
>> dotViewFlowListener (they are based on MessageExchangeListeners).
>> Those were not an options for us because we wanted JBI compliance. But
>> I am aware that functionalities of our mechanism would overlap with
>> those dotViewThingies
>>
>>
>> So what do You think about it ?
>
> This is an interesting idea. I have built some stuff around a similar
> idea in the past for ServiceMix. Take a look at the servicemix-audit
> component. I wasn't ever concerned with JBI compliance though, so I
> just used a MessageExchangeListener.
>
> IMO, you should to develop this in stages. Get the most important
> items working correctly before moving on to the nice-to-have type of
> features like the diagram stuff.
>
> Bruce
>
>
Thank You for your response Bruce.
I took a look into the code of servicemix-audit. Seems to be quite useful
mechanism for persisting all the MessageExchanges (I found JDBC and Lucene
implementations) and exposing them by JMX (various queries included) !!
As You saing I found that You were implementing it as an ExchangeListener.
Yeah it is not JBI compliant but we Use AOP to directly pointcut
DeliveryChannel methods just to achieve the same result as You did (having
exchangeSent and exchangeAccepted called when ME is passing by ;)... oo
actually I see that You do not use the exchangeAccepted entrypoint [I have
the source code from 3.1.2 release]).
We were wondering If a direct storing in DB (using for example JDBC) will
not slow down the process of sending and accepting ME. I do not know exactly
how are the MessageListeners implemented but I suppose that You have proffed
them against situation when some listener process the exchangeSent or
exchangeAccepted for some long time period (but in the source of
servicemix-core I recall some regular for loop which just loops through all
the Listeners and executes notification method)?
When we are pointcuting the DeliveryMethod so we are directly interfering
when sending and recieving threads so we are worrying about the performance
:(. To do not block the thread we have decided to send necessary data to the
other processing Engine. We chose regular TCP socket to make things faster.
What do You think about such decision ? We tried to evaluate JMS for this
purpose but it turned out to be a lot slower !!
Regards,
Marek Psiuk
P.S.
I have put some more details about our idea in this thread:
http://cwiki.apache.org/SM/discussion-forums.html#nabble-to16908206%7Ca17293632
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/JBI-Profiling-Tool-tp16913351p17329248.html
Sent from the ServiceMix - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
