Re: Message API - Real world usage issue

[Fraser Adams <fr...@blueyonder.co.uk>]

Hi again Clive,
I'm not sure if you've tried the stuff below yet, but I've got some good 
news

Using the consumers

./drain -b localhost -f \
"queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
\"qpid.subject='bill'\"}}"

./drain -b localhost -f \
"queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
\"qpid.subject='ben'\"}}"

./drain -b localhost -f \
"queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
\"qpid.subject='tim'\"}}"


I was a bit worried what would happen if messages that don't match get 
pushed onto the queue, but I've just tried

./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/fred"
./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/tim"

And that seems to send the last message to the tim receiver quite 
happily, which is I guess what you want.


One thing to be aware of though is that I haven't got a clue how message 
selectors are implemented when linking to queue nodes. In the case of 
exchange nodes they are implemented between the exchange and the 
subscription queue so a message doesn't get added to the subscription 
queue unless it matches, so that would seem to be a one-off match, but 
with selectors on queues I *wonder* if it's behaving more like a browser.

What I mean is that all of the fred messages above remain on the queue 
though tim seems to get sent through so it's clearly not simply checking 
that the head of the queue matches the selector, which makes me wonder 
whether performance degrades as the queue depth increases??

I've got no evidence for that, just a nagging feeling, perhaps someone 
more familiar with the implementation would be able to comment.

Regards,
Frase

On 17/02/14 18:13, CLIVE wrote:
> Fraze,
>
> Thanks for taking a further look at this. I have not come across the 
> selector option before. In fact I tried it today at work on a 0.20 
> version, but got an exception due to this option not being a valid 
> name. Currently building 0.26 and will give it another go tomorrow.
>
> Just one thought, as the selector is part of the link section, will 
> this still work if the receivers are all in the same process, using a 
> single session. I had hoped to try this today but ran out of time 
> waiting for the 0.26 version to build.
>
> Will be looking at AMQP 1.0 over the next few weeks.
>
> Anyway thanks for all the advice and help so far.
>
> Clive
>
> On 14/02/2014 09:20, Fraser Adams wrote:
>> Hi again Clive,
>> A follow up to the mail that I sent yesterday evening. I've got this 
>> thing working using subject in AMQP 0.10 using the following 
>> addresses in drain and spout:
>>
>>
>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"qpid.subject='bill'\"}}"
>>
>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"qpid.subject='ben'\"}}"
>>
>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"qpid.subject='tim'\"}}"
>>
>> ./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/tim"
>>
>>
>>
>> However one thing I'm still stumped on is what happens with AMQP 1.0. 
>> I tried to do a send to the receivers above using:
>>
>> ./spout --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost 
>> --content "Hello World" "queue1/tim"
>>
>> In other words I've only changed the sender protocol to AMQP 1.0 and 
>> now the message doesn't get through!!
>>
>>
>> It doesn't work either for an AMQP 1.0 consumer with the AMQP 1.0 
>> producer
>>
>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"qpid.subject='tim'\"}}"
>>
>> Though the above *does* work with the original AMQP 0.10 send???!!!
>>
>> I've tried
>>
>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"subject='tim'\"}}"
>>
>> and
>>
>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>> \"amqp.subject='tim'\"}}"
>>
>> but nothing seems to work with the AMQP 1.0 producer example.
>>
>>
>> Annoyingly, if I simply consume off the queue with no selector by doing:
>>
>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>> "queue1; {create: receiver}"
>>
>> ./spout --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost 
>> --content "Hello World" "queue1/tim"
>>
>> The message reported by drain says:
>>
>> Message(properties={spout-id:88fc4a67-d71e-4b86-b967-f897306400e7:0}, 
>> subject='tim', content='Hello World')
>>
>> So *something* thinks that there's a subject property set, but the 
>> selector doesn't seem to see it.
>>
>>
>> Does anybody know how to specify the message subject as a property 
>> for a Message Selector in AMQP 1.0???
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frase
>>
>> On 13/02/14 18:04, Fraser Adams wrote:
>>> Hey again Clive,
>>> Hope that you are well.
>>>
>>> I think that I might have made a little progress against your use case.
>>>
>>> All of the previous comments on this email thread still hold in 
>>> terms of what has been said about queues, exchanges, bindings etc. 
>>> Robbie's most recent comment "I believe its really only conveyed in 
>>> the address string as a form of extension point offering some 
>>> ability to leverage the AMQP 0-10 bind commands" is exactly it.
>>>
>>> However as Robbie and myself suggested earlier the move towards AMQP 
>>> 1.0 gives additional exciting options for message filtering in the 
>>> form of JMS style Message Selectors.
>>>
>>> In your original scenario you tried to do:
>>>
>>>    Rxer 1 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node: 
>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', 
>>> queue: 'queue1', key: 'bill'}]}}"
>>>    Rxer 2 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node: 
>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', 
>>> queue: 'queue1', key: 'ben'}]}}"
>>>    Rxer 3 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node: 
>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', 
>>> queue: 'queue1', key: 'tim'}]}}"
>>>
>>> And you were hoping that a message with the subject "tim" would only 
>>> end up getting delivered to Rxer 3 and hopefully we've explained why 
>>> that isn't the case.
>>>
>>> But let's try using Message Selectors. I'm using drain and spout 
>>> because I don't need to write any code but it should translate into 
>>> what you are doing. I'm using qpid 0.27 compiled off trunk about 
>>> three weeks ago.
>>>
>>> So starting with qpidd --auth no for simplicity I fire up the 
>>> following in three separate windows:
>>>
>>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='bill'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='ben'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='tim'\"}}"
>>>
>>>
>>> What this is doing is to start up three separate AMQP 1.0 consumers 
>>> that all consume from queue1 and have Message Selectors that inspect 
>>> the property "test" for the values "bill", "ben" and "tim" 
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> If you do qpid-config -r queues you'll see
>>> Queue 'queue1'
>>>     bind [queue1] => ''
>>>
>>>
>>> I then do:
>>>
>>> ./spout --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost 
>>> --content "Hello World" -P test=tim "queue1"
>>>
>>> Which sends a message with the text "Hello World" and the property 
>>> "test" set to "tim" to the node addressed "queue1" e.g. to the queue 
>>> queue1 in this case.
>>>
>>> When I do this happily what I see is nothing in the bill and ben 
>>> windows and
>>>
>>> Message(properties={spout-id:aa92e8c4-3d12-40f6-bc89-8cabe91500e6:0, 
>>> test:tim}, content='Hello World')
>>>
>>> in the tim window.
>>>
>>> I sent the message 20 times and each time it only arrived on the 
>>> "tim" receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>> Although Message Selectors were added as part of the AMQP 1.0 work 
>>> it seems that it also works in AMQP 0.10 because when I tried the 
>>> following it worked too.
>>>
>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='bill'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='ben'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"test='tim'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" -P test=tim "queue1"
>>>
>>>
>>> So it looks like it's *nearly* what you are looking for. One thing 
>>> that I've *not* got working yet though is using the subject. I 
>>> thought that
>>>
>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, link: {name: test-link, selector: 
>>> \"subject='tim'\"}}"
>>>
>>> ./spout -b localhost --content "Hello World" "queue1/tim"
>>>
>>>
>>> would work, but it doesn't seem to. It's likely to be something 
>>> quirky like the subject property needing some prefix or other, I 
>>> don't know. If I get a moment I'll have a look - or perhaps someone 
>>> else may know the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hope that helps. Do bear in mind that I've literally only spend 45 
>>> mins or so messing with this so there may be gotchas and I've not 
>>> investigated the relative pros and cons of using a selector as a 
>>> filter off a queue node versus the more traditional topic style 
>>> subscriptions (you certainly run the risk of filling your queue up 
>>> if "tim" stops consuming though that might be fine if you use a 
>>> circular queue). I don't know the earliest broker version where this 
>>> will work I *think* Message Selectors were first added to 0.20 but 
>>> you'd be best to use something more recent if you want to try this 
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps a bit,
>>> Frase
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/02/14 21:57, CLIVE wrote:
>>>> Robbie,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the response.
>>>>
>>>> You are confirming what Fraze has said, so I obviously need to take 
>>>> this on board and rethink my understanding of the Receiver concept.
>>>>
>>>> In my mind I had a Receiver as an entity that received the messages 
>>>> specified by the address string, but in fact I need to just look at 
>>>> it as a conduit to a queue that has one or more bindings associated 
>>>> with it.
>>>>
>>>> Clive
>>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2014 21:35, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>>> On 11 February 2014 19:34, CLIVE <cl...@ckjltd.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ted,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the response and your comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had to handle the case of multiple Receivers attaching to 
>>>>>> the same
>>>>>> queue on several occasions; primarily because the customer has 
>>>>>> felt that it
>>>>>> was easier to handle one queue with multiple bindings (up to 
>>>>>> 100), rather
>>>>>> than having a hundred queues with single bindings; message order 
>>>>>> was also a
>>>>>> contributing factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point of the post was just to raise it as a possible issue 
>>>>>> for future
>>>>>> improvement..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I carried out a straw poll of 10 developers today at work. I gave 
>>>>>> them the
>>>>>> two examples previously described and asked what they would 
>>>>>> expect to
>>>>>> happen for the case where multiple Receivers were created for the 
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> queue. They all expected the correct Receiver to be returned from 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> nextReceiver method, not the undeterministic behaviour that they 
>>>>>> would see.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As has been mentioned by others, the behaviour you are seeing is 
>>>>> expected
>>>>> because it is exactly what you are really asking the client and 
>>>>> broker to
>>>>> do currently: one queue which can receive messages via multiple 
>>>>> binding
>>>>> keys that have been added, and distribute them to any of the 
>>>>> completely
>>>>> equal multiple consumers receiving from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Fraser has also beaten me to saying, if you really want to make
>>>>> particular consumers only get particular messages from a shared 
>>>>> queue, then
>>>>> you will likely need to look at using selectors so that they can 
>>>>> in fact
>>>>> only receive those messages.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't have thought that it would take that much code/effort 
>>>>>> to add
>>>>>> some additional functionality in the messaging API Implementation to
>>>>>> support the behavior that, it would appear, most developers would 
>>>>>> expect to
>>>>>> see. If I find some time I will take a look and see how it could 
>>>>>> be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> As Fraser mentioned, I think there is some confusion as to what your
>>>>> reciever creation calls are actually doing, but even if removing that
>>>>> confusion from the equation the situation is not necessarily as 
>>>>> simple as
>>>>> it may seem. Suppose two receivers add the same binding key, which 
>>>>> is the
>>>>> 'correct' receiver to get the single message? Suppose wildcard 
>>>>> matching is
>>>>> in use on the bindings and multiple bindings then match a particular
>>>>> message published, which receiver gets the single message? Imagine
>>>>> selectors are also in use, but mutliple consumers selectors match the
>>>>> message, which reciever gets the message? The list goes on...
>>>>>
>>>>> You are effectively talking about turning the client into a sort 
>>>>> of broker,
>>>>> and since you already have one of those its probably easier to 
>>>>> just ask it
>>>>> to do what you actually want.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robbie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/02/2014 22:17, Ted Ross wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clive,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you are observing is what I expect:  In the second scenario 
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> you use the same queue for each of the three receivers, the 
>>>>>>> receiver that
>>>>>>> receives any particular message will be non-deterministic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is because the binding key is applied between the exchange 
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> queue (i.e. it is used to determine which queue(s) the message 
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> enqueued on).  Multiple receivers on a queue will receive 
>>>>>>> messages from the
>>>>>>> queue in an undetermined order, but no message shall be 
>>>>>>> delivered to more
>>>>>>> than one receiver.  In the second case, all of the messages are 
>>>>>>> placed on
>>>>>>> the same queue in the order in which they arrive.  The queue 
>>>>>>> acts as a
>>>>>>> buffer between the routing rule that matched the message and the 
>>>>>>> receiver
>>>>>>> that provided the routing rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be simpler to do the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Rxer 1 - "amq.topic/bill; {link: {x-declare: 
>>>>>>> {auto-delete:true}}}"
>>>>>>>    Rxer 2 - "amq.topic/ben; {link: {x-declare: 
>>>>>>> {auto-delete:true}}}"
>>>>>>>    Rxer 3 - "amq.topic/tim; {link: {x-declare: 
>>>>>>> {auto-delete:true}}}"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will give you the determinism you want.  This will cause the
>>>>>>> creation of a temporary queue for each receiver that will 
>>>>>>> receive the
>>>>>>> messages that match the topic key (following the slash in the 
>>>>>>> address).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Ted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/10/2014 04:39 PM, CLIVE wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fraser,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the response. The real problem is that the behavior 
>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>> Receiver is different depending on the multiplicity of the 
>>>>>>>> binding strategy
>>>>>>>> used. If you use a single queue with a single binding then 
>>>>>>>> messages will
>>>>>>>> get delivered to the required receiver. If you use multiple 
>>>>>>>> Receivers bound
>>>>>>>> to the same queue, the Receiver called by the messaging API, when
>>>>>>>> delivering a message to your application, may not be the one 
>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>> think!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if I create three Receivers in the same application, with the
>>>>>>>> following bindings (note unique queue names)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 1 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'bill'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 2 - "queue2; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'ben'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 3 - "queue3; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'tim'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And then send a message on the amq.topic exchange with a 
>>>>>>>> subject of
>>>>>>>> 'tim'. Then Rxer3 will get returned by the 'nextReceiver' 
>>>>>>>> method on the
>>>>>>>> associated Session object.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if I change the bindings so they related to the same queue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 1 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'bill'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 2 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'ben'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>     Rxer 3 - "queue1; {create: receiver, node:
>>>>>>>> {x-declare:{auto-delete:true}, x-bindings: [{exchange: 
>>>>>>>> 'amq.topic', queue:
>>>>>>>> 'queue1', key: 'tim'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And send the same message again, Which Receiver would you 
>>>>>>>> expect to get
>>>>>>>> returned from the sessions nextReceiver method?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would expect the same result as in the first example, Rxer 3. 
>>>>>>>> But this
>>>>>>>> does not happen, anyone of the three receivers might get called.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This doesn't seem right to me and as a result you have to 
>>>>>>>> produce quite
>>>>>>>> a bit of application level logic to handle this scenario; 
>>>>>>>> especially when
>>>>>>>> your bindings are being passed down to you dynamically by 
>>>>>>>> several client
>>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope this explains it a bit better than my last attempt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 07/02/2014 10:03, Fraser Adams wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/02/14 19:07, CLIVE wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The first use case requires the dynamic creation of 
>>>>>>>>>> Receivers, but
>>>>>>>>>> before creating a new receiver, I would like to know if I 
>>>>>>>>>> already have a
>>>>>>>>>> receiver that would match the required binding. This is not 
>>>>>>>>>> possible at the
>>>>>>>>>> moment because the binding matching algorithms are hidden 
>>>>>>>>>> from public view;
>>>>>>>>>> they are buried deep inside the Brokers Exchange 
>>>>>>>>>> Implementation code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know that you can get the binding information from QMF 
>>>>>>>>> don't you
>>>>>>>>> Clive? I guess I'm missing what you're looking for if it's 
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> different than that. And I guess to be fair to get the 
>>>>>>>>> information via QMF
>>>>>>>>> you'd need a bit of code, but I'd have thought that this would 
>>>>>>>>> be the most
>>>>>>>>> appropriate way to get the information.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Out of curiosity why do you need to know if you already have a 
>>>>>>>>> receiver
>>>>>>>>> that would match the binding?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thing that's worth mentioning, I'm suspecting that (like 
>>>>>>>>> me) you've
>>>>>>>>> mainly been using AMQP 0.10 - If I'm reading you correctly you 
>>>>>>>>> sound like
>>>>>>>>> you are dynamically creating queue nodes and passing x-bindings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been doing that for a few years, but a few weeks back I 
>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>> looking at AMQP 1.0 and that primarily takes a perspective of 
>>>>>>>>> addressing
>>>>>>>>> the topic like exchanges and the queues end up being 
>>>>>>>>> subscription queues
>>>>>>>>> and all of the stuff that relates to binding and the like ends 
>>>>>>>>> up in the
>>>>>>>>> link (not node) config.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me at any rate that was quite a different perspective on 
>>>>>>>>> things (I
>>>>>>>>> wrote up what I was up to in the "A write up of some AMQP 1.0 
>>>>>>>>> Experiments"
>>>>>>>>> post) previously I've been focussing on the queues, so I was 
>>>>>>>>> dynamically
>>>>>>>>> creating queue nodes and passing x-bindings in AMQP 0.10, but 
>>>>>>>>> in AMQP 1.0
>>>>>>>>> I've been addressing the exchanges (topic type nodes) and 
>>>>>>>>> using the link to
>>>>>>>>> specify what I need. For me it took a bit of getting used to 
>>>>>>>>> because I was
>>>>>>>>> so ingrained doing it the other way, but I think I'm getting 
>>>>>>>>> it now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The second use case in question requires a client application to
>>>>>>>>>> dynamically create multiple receivers for the same queue, but 
>>>>>>>>>> with slightly
>>>>>>>>>> different binding keys bound to an exchange. When a message 
>>>>>>>>>> from an
>>>>>>>>>> exchange gets put in the queue and delivered to the client 
>>>>>>>>>> (via a receiver)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting what you are saying 
>>>>>>>>> here, so
>>>>>>>>> you want a client that has a single queue, but each receiver 
>>>>>>>>> adds different
>>>>>>>>> binding keys right? You do know that this will result in what 
>>>>>>>>> amounts to an
>>>>>>>>> OR condition - both keys will be bound and a message will be 
>>>>>>>>> put on the
>>>>>>>>> queue if either match so consumer A of the queue would receive 
>>>>>>>>> messages due
>>>>>>>>> to consumer B's key - is that what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following AMQP 1.0 consumers will do what you seem to be 
>>>>>>>>> saying,
>>>>>>>>> there's a single shared subscription queue called queue1, the 
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>> consumer binds *.news the second *.weather
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "amq.topic/*.news; {node: {capabilities: [shared]}, link: {name:
>>>>>>>>> queue1}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain --connection-options {protocol:amqp1.0} -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "amq.topic/*.weather; {node: {capabilities: [shared]}, link: 
>>>>>>>>> {name:
>>>>>>>>> queue1}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> qpid-config -r queues gives
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Queue 'queue1'
>>>>>>>>>      bind [queue1] => ''
>>>>>>>>>      bind [*.news] => amq.topic
>>>>>>>>>      bind [*.weather] => amq.topic
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For AMQP 0.10 the following would create a similar effect (not 
>>>>>>>>> sure if
>>>>>>>>> you want auto delete or not, if not remove the x-declare below 
>>>>>>>>> and for the
>>>>>>>>> AMQP 1.0 example above add reliability: at-least-once to the 
>>>>>>>>> link Map)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare:{auto-delete:True},
>>>>>>>>> x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', queue: 'queue1', key: 
>>>>>>>>> '*.news'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare:{auto-delete:True},
>>>>>>>>> x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', queue: 'queue1', key: 
>>>>>>>>> '*.weather'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The following also works for AMQP 0.10
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare:{auto-delete:True}},
>>>>>>>>> link: {x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', queue: 'queue1', key:
>>>>>>>>> '*.news'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ./drain -b localhost -f \
>>>>>>>>> "queue1; {create: receiver, node: {x-declare:{auto-delete:True}},
>>>>>>>>> link: {x-bindings: [{exchange: 'amq.topic', queue: 'queue1', key:
>>>>>>>>> '*.weather'}]}}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't know if this is what you are looking for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that in none of the cases above have I worked out how to 
>>>>>>>>> remove a
>>>>>>>>> binding other than by removing the queue so if you add the 
>>>>>>>>> first then the
>>>>>>>>> second then delete the second both bindings remain in place - 
>>>>>>>>> I did wonder
>>>>>>>>> about putting the x-declare/auto delete stuff on the link in 
>>>>>>>>> the second
>>>>>>>>> AMQP 0.10 example, but that doesn't seem to remove the 
>>>>>>>>> binding, so I'm not
>>>>>>>>> sure if that's possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   I need to route the message to the correct application level
>>>>>>>>>> destination(s). To do this I need to undertake a matching 
>>>>>>>>>> operation between
>>>>>>>>>> the routing key of the message and the binding key(s) of the 
>>>>>>>>>> created
>>>>>>>>>> receivers; qpid does not deliver the message to the receiver 
>>>>>>>>>> with the most
>>>>>>>>>> exact binding key match.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess than I'm not understanding you here. As far as I'm 
>>>>>>>>> aware if
>>>>>>>>> you've got multiple bindings between an exchange and a queue 
>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>> message will be delivered on to the queue if either binding 
>>>>>>>>> matches, so it
>>>>>>>>> behaves like a logical OR. In your scenario if the first 
>>>>>>>>> receiver adds
>>>>>>>>> *.news then the second adds *.weather then from that point on 
>>>>>>>>> they will
>>>>>>>>> *both* start to receive (*.news OR *.weather)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   So basically the receivers, and their bindings, enable the 
>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>>> messages to get delivered to the required client, but I then 
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> undertake application level routing to route the message to 
>>>>>>>>>> one or more
>>>>>>>>>> application level classes, based on message routing key/ 
>>>>>>>>>> receiver binding
>>>>>>>>>> key matches.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I'm still totally baffled why you want to send them to the 
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> queue if you are then demultiplexing at the application level. 
>>>>>>>>> Surely (for
>>>>>>>>> example) you'd be better having a news queue for the *.news 
>>>>>>>>> messages and a
>>>>>>>>> weather queue for the *.weather messages. If you force them 
>>>>>>>>> down the same
>>>>>>>>> queue then you are going to have to do application level 
>>>>>>>>> demultiplexing,
>>>>>>>>> which it sounds like you don't want to do, but why use a 
>>>>>>>>> single queue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's actually driving the single queue requirement? That 
>>>>>>>>> sounds like
>>>>>>>>> the root of your problems, without knowing the nuance of your 
>>>>>>>>> scenario it
>>>>>>>>> feels like your approaching the problem from the wrong angle 
>>>>>>>>> and fighting
>>>>>>>>> the middleware rather than letting it work for you. I'm sure 
>>>>>>>>> I've missed
>>>>>>>>> something subtle in your use case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately in both cases the messaging API does not provide
>>>>>>>>>> visibility of the bind matching algorithms and so I have to 
>>>>>>>>>> create several
>>>>>>>>>> utility classes to support this functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would it be possible to create a Binding.h class in the 
>>>>>>>>>> messaging API
>>>>>>>>>> to support matching of bindings from all the supported 
>>>>>>>>>> exchange types?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not actually sure what you are asking for here. Are you 
>>>>>>>>> asking for
>>>>>>>>> a client side filtering API?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I say I'm having trouble getting under the skin of your use 
>>>>>>>>> case. If
>>>>>>>>> I'm reading it correctly it sounds like you are wanting to 
>>>>>>>>> have a single
>>>>>>>>> queue but have multiple bindings between an exchange and that 
>>>>>>>>> queue, which
>>>>>>>>> will result in messages for both bindings making their way on 
>>>>>>>>> to the queue
>>>>>>>>> and then, to get around that, to apply a client side filter to 
>>>>>>>>> deliver the
>>>>>>>>> right message to the right receiver - is that correct?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that I'm still not clear why you want to do that on 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> client rather than on the broker??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other's might have a better view, but I'm not sure that client 
>>>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>>>> filtering fits into the qpid::messaging API per se (and 
>>>>>>>>> binding probably
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be a good idea anyway as it's a legacy AMQP 0.10 
>>>>>>>>> concept).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One thought moving forward (and I'm far from an expert) might 
>>>>>>>>> be to
>>>>>>>>> think in terms of AMQP 1.0, so the Qpid Broker may be viewed 
>>>>>>>>> as essentially
>>>>>>>>> an AMQP 1.0 container and it has a whole bunch of 
>>>>>>>>> capabilities, including
>>>>>>>>> the ability to filter (the traditional bindings plus - really 
>>>>>>>>> cool -
>>>>>>>>> message selectors). The qpid::messaging API is about 
>>>>>>>>> interacting with nodes
>>>>>>>>> on a container and attaching links with specified properties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As it happens though an AMQP 1.0 client application can also 
>>>>>>>>> be thought
>>>>>>>>> of as a container, so an interesting thought might be a client 
>>>>>>>>> application
>>>>>>>>> containing its own addressable node. In this scenario you'd 
>>>>>>>>> establish all
>>>>>>>>> the stuff previously discussed with the broker and the 
>>>>>>>>> consumer client
>>>>>>>>> would have all messages delivered to the node on the client, 
>>>>>>>>> you could then
>>>>>>>>> (in theory 'cause none of this exists) create AMQP links (on 
>>>>>>>>> the client) to
>>>>>>>>> the node (on the client) passing filter properties on 
>>>>>>>>> attachment (such as a
>>>>>>>>> selector).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I say none of this exists at the moment (except on the 
>>>>>>>>> broker) but
>>>>>>>>> it might be interesting to consider if it would be possible to 
>>>>>>>>> modularise
>>>>>>>>> things such that some of these fairly general purpose AMQP 1.0 
>>>>>>>>> "services"
>>>>>>>>> could be extracted from the broker and made available as a 
>>>>>>>>> toolkit for
>>>>>>>>> creating general purpose AMQP 1.0 containers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I say I'm no expert and tentatively finding my feet with 
>>>>>>>>> AMQP 1.0,
>>>>>>>>> Gordon Sim would be far better placed than I to say whether 
>>>>>>>>> that a) makes
>>>>>>>>> sense from an AMQP 1.0 perspective b) how feasible it is and 
>>>>>>>>> c) how likely
>>>>>>>>> it is to happen :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope I've managed to be at least some help Clive,
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Frase
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org