You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> on 2009/05/01 11:53:42 UTC
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
I have committed a patch to trunk:
that resolves #1 (partly), #2 and #4
In #1 there are still two classes that needs a cleanup as well.
However they are core pieces in Camel, the Pipeline and
MulticastProcessor so they are left as is. When we have a new Async
API in place these classes can be fixed as well.
I have also attached a prototype for a patch for the new async API
experiment I have done. See CAMEL-1572.
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Claus,
>
> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
> come to mind...
> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
> are the two unrelated?
Per see the two are unrelated as such. But in the future we can much
more easily introduce async channels.
If you want for instance each processing step to be done async step by step :)
But currently the Channel we have is not so flexible but the ground
work has been done for the future work.
> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
> right?
Note the async DSL I did in the patch was an experiment but will bring
it back in to replace the old Thread DSL.
Well the original thread gets the Future<Exchange> handle as a result.
So it basically returns this back to the original caller.
Then the original caller can do other work, and then retrieve the
async thread result when he/she likes with the future handle get
method.
> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
Good question. I am also aligning the configuration of thread pools in
Camel 2.0. So its based on ExecutorService and have the same API /
Spring attribute.
This allows end users to define thread pools as they like more easily
and configure it.
And at the same time we should provide some default pools and pool
sizes. Some uses 5 and others 10 in the current code base. But
basically each processor creates its own thread pool if none
configured, and they default to a size of either 5 or 10.
When I get a bit more work done lets re asset and find a good solution
for thread pool management in Camel 2.0
For instance some users with J2EE servers would like to define that
Camel should use threads provided from this server.
>
> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
I guess we have enough work just to keep the Scala DSL up to date. But
yeah concurrency and parallel work is challeging the way we program
today in Java.
Bug be careful James might read this and ask you to do some prototyping :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> Status update
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>
>>> The remaining work:
>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>> DONE
>>
>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>> DONE
>>
>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>> executor service.
>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>
>>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Claus,
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
> Could you add the road map of call back support into the Camel 2.0
> Design page[1]?
>
> [1] http://camel.apache.org/camel-20-design.html
Two minds think alike. I have just updated the design page and moved
the UnitOfWork callbacks from 2.1 to 2.0.
>
> Willem
>
> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Claus
>>>
>>> I really enjoy to read the document that you write.
>>> You give me a good explanation and compare of Camel Sync and Async
>>> processing API.
>>>
>>> Now I just have quick question for the replacement of old AsyncCallback
>>> API Done().
>>> Let's take the Asynchronous Request Only message sending as an example.
>>>
>>> The user could want to know if the request is processed succeed, but he
>>> doesn't want to his sending client checks every Feature object for
>>> return message, he just want to register a simple call back method for
>>> doing some revert work if the message can't be processed rightly.
>>>
>>> How can the new Async API help us to implement this user story.
>> The tip kinda explains that:
>>
>> In case you want to know whether the Async Request Only failed, then
>> you can use the Future handle and invoke get() and if it throws a
>> ExecutionException then the processing failed. The caused exception is
>> wrapped. You can invoke isDone() first to test whether the task is
>> done or still in progress. Otherwise invoking get() will wait until
>> the task is done.
>>
>>
>> So if you want to check whether an exception occurred or not you can do
>>
>> public boolean didTheJobSucceed(Future future) {
>> try {
>> future.get();
>> return true;
>> } catch (ExecutionException e) {
>> return false;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> But its not 100% what you want as you want a callback that is invoked
>> when the job is done.
>> Well the JDK concurrency API does not support that easily. You can not
>> register custom callbacks, that are automatic invoked when a task is
>> complete.
>>
>>
>> But dont dispair. In Camel we have the UnitOfWork for that. The idea
>> is that its where end users and camel components can register
>> callbacks
>> when a Camel Exchange is complete or failed.
>>
>> We have planned for Camel 2.1 to give this an overhaul as well, so we
>> got nice syntax sugar in the DSL itself so you can easily add custom
>> callbacks, that can be camel routes as well. Eg to easily send an
>> email in case of a route failure.
>>
>> In the mean time you can use the UnitOfWork and add a callback
>> yourself from a processor.
>> There is a addSynchronization method on the UoW
>>
>> exchange.getUnitOfWork().addSynchronization(mySync)
>>
>>
>> So Willem we will get this improved in the future as well. You can do
>> it now but will be easier and nicer in Camel 2.1.
>> Or if we find the time then we can maybe make it for 2.0 as well. I
>> guess the main problem before holding it back was the old Async API
>> that just got to complex and broken. So I do envision it should be not
>> that hard to do now.
>>
>>
>>> BTW, Since Spring store the transaction information in the thread local
>>> variable , we need to make sure the rollback method is called in the
>>> same thread, so this is common user story in camel.
>>
>> Yeah for transactions you should not mix threads. This problem can
>> occur if you use the async() DSL as it will submit a new task that are
>> executed in a new thread. But for the client API using the
>> ProducerTemplate there are no problem, as the transaction should
>> usually not span both the client + "camel".
>>
>> But for sure that is something you should consider when doing transactions.
>>
>> Everyting has its pros/cons. Also async messaging.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Willem
>>>
>>> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
>>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Claus,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
>>>>>> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
>>>>>> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
>>>>>> come to mind...
>>>>>> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
>>>>>> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
>>>>>> are the two unrelated?
>>>>>> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
>>>>>> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>> I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
>>>>> There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
>>>>>
>>>>> This option is an enum accepting 3 options
>>>>> - Always
>>>>> - Newer
>>>>> - IfReplyExpected
>>>>>
>>>>> The first two options is self describing.
>>>>> The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current default is Always,
>>>> I have given it some more thought and changed the default to
>>>> IfReplyExpected, as its kinda what eg. JMS Mina and other components
>>>> also does already.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: I have created a new wiki page for all this new Async API. Anyone
>>>> care to read and review is much appreciated.
>>>> http://camel.apache.org/async
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
>>>>> Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do people think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
>>>>> If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
>>>>> they both wait.
>>>>>
>>>>> However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
>>>>> that be used for?
>>>>> Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
>>>>> wait, we will be notified
>>>>> of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
>>>>>> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
>>>>>> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
>>>>>> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
>>>>>> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
>>>>>> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
>>>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Status update
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>>>>>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The remaining work:
>>>>>>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>>>>>>> DONE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>>>>>>> DONE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>>>>>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>>>>>>> executor service.
>>>>>>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>>
>>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>>>>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>>>>> Interview with me:
>>>>> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Claus,
Thanks for your explanation.
Could you add the road map of call back support into the Camel 2.0
Design page[1]?
[1] http://camel.apache.org/camel-20-design.html
Willem
Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Claus
>>
>> I really enjoy to read the document that you write.
>> You give me a good explanation and compare of Camel Sync and Async
>> processing API.
>>
>> Now I just have quick question for the replacement of old AsyncCallback
>> API Done().
>> Let's take the Asynchronous Request Only message sending as an example.
>>
>> The user could want to know if the request is processed succeed, but he
>> doesn't want to his sending client checks every Feature object for
>> return message, he just want to register a simple call back method for
>> doing some revert work if the message can't be processed rightly.
>>
>> How can the new Async API help us to implement this user story.
> The tip kinda explains that:
>
> In case you want to know whether the Async Request Only failed, then
> you can use the Future handle and invoke get() and if it throws a
> ExecutionException then the processing failed. The caused exception is
> wrapped. You can invoke isDone() first to test whether the task is
> done or still in progress. Otherwise invoking get() will wait until
> the task is done.
>
>
> So if you want to check whether an exception occurred or not you can do
>
> public boolean didTheJobSucceed(Future future) {
> try {
> future.get();
> return true;
> } catch (ExecutionException e) {
> return false;
> }
> }
>
> But its not 100% what you want as you want a callback that is invoked
> when the job is done.
> Well the JDK concurrency API does not support that easily. You can not
> register custom callbacks, that are automatic invoked when a task is
> complete.
>
>
> But dont dispair. In Camel we have the UnitOfWork for that. The idea
> is that its where end users and camel components can register
> callbacks
> when a Camel Exchange is complete or failed.
>
> We have planned for Camel 2.1 to give this an overhaul as well, so we
> got nice syntax sugar in the DSL itself so you can easily add custom
> callbacks, that can be camel routes as well. Eg to easily send an
> email in case of a route failure.
>
> In the mean time you can use the UnitOfWork and add a callback
> yourself from a processor.
> There is a addSynchronization method on the UoW
>
> exchange.getUnitOfWork().addSynchronization(mySync)
>
>
> So Willem we will get this improved in the future as well. You can do
> it now but will be easier and nicer in Camel 2.1.
> Or if we find the time then we can maybe make it for 2.0 as well. I
> guess the main problem before holding it back was the old Async API
> that just got to complex and broken. So I do envision it should be not
> that hard to do now.
>
>
>> BTW, Since Spring store the transaction information in the thread local
>> variable , we need to make sure the rollback method is called in the
>> same thread, so this is common user story in camel.
>
> Yeah for transactions you should not mix threads. This problem can
> occur if you use the async() DSL as it will submit a new task that are
> executed in a new thread. But for the client API using the
> ProducerTemplate there are no problem, as the transaction should
> usually not span both the client + "camel".
>
> But for sure that is something you should consider when doing transactions.
>
> Everyting has its pros/cons. Also async messaging.
>
>
>
>> Willem
>>
>> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
>>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Claus,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
>>>>> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
>>>>> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
>>>>> come to mind...
>>>>> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
>>>>> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
>>>>> are the two unrelated?
>>>>> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
>>>>> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
>>>>> right?
>>>> I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
>>>> There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
>>>>
>>>> This option is an enum accepting 3 options
>>>> - Always
>>>> - Newer
>>>> - IfReplyExpected
>>>>
>>>> The first two options is self describing.
>>>> The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
>>>>
>>>> The current default is Always,
>>> I have given it some more thought and changed the default to
>>> IfReplyExpected, as its kinda what eg. JMS Mina and other components
>>> also does already.
>>>
>>> BTW: I have created a new wiki page for all this new Async API. Anyone
>>> care to read and review is much appreciated.
>>> http://camel.apache.org/async
>>>
>>>
>>>> However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
>>>> Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
>>>>
>>>> What do people think?
>>>>
>>>> Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
>>>> If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
>>>> they both wait.
>>>>
>>>> However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
>>>> that be used for?
>>>> Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
>>>> wait, we will be notified
>>>> of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
>>>>> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
>>>>> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
>>>>> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
>>>>> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
>>>>> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Status update
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>>>>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The remaining work:
>>>>>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>>>>>> DONE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>>>>>> DONE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>>>>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>>>>>> executor service.
>>>>>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Claus Ibsen
>>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>>
>>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>>>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>>>> Interview with me:
>>>> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Claus
>
> I really enjoy to read the document that you write.
> You give me a good explanation and compare of Camel Sync and Async
> processing API.
>
> Now I just have quick question for the replacement of old AsyncCallback
> API Done().
> Let's take the Asynchronous Request Only message sending as an example.
>
> The user could want to know if the request is processed succeed, but he
> doesn't want to his sending client checks every Feature object for
> return message, he just want to register a simple call back method for
> doing some revert work if the message can't be processed rightly.
>
> How can the new Async API help us to implement this user story.
The tip kinda explains that:
In case you want to know whether the Async Request Only failed, then
you can use the Future handle and invoke get() and if it throws a
ExecutionException then the processing failed. The caused exception is
wrapped. You can invoke isDone() first to test whether the task is
done or still in progress. Otherwise invoking get() will wait until
the task is done.
So if you want to check whether an exception occurred or not you can do
public boolean didTheJobSucceed(Future future) {
try {
future.get();
return true;
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
return false;
}
}
But its not 100% what you want as you want a callback that is invoked
when the job is done.
Well the JDK concurrency API does not support that easily. You can not
register custom callbacks, that are automatic invoked when a task is
complete.
But dont dispair. In Camel we have the UnitOfWork for that. The idea
is that its where end users and camel components can register
callbacks
when a Camel Exchange is complete or failed.
We have planned for Camel 2.1 to give this an overhaul as well, so we
got nice syntax sugar in the DSL itself so you can easily add custom
callbacks, that can be camel routes as well. Eg to easily send an
email in case of a route failure.
In the mean time you can use the UnitOfWork and add a callback
yourself from a processor.
There is a addSynchronization method on the UoW
exchange.getUnitOfWork().addSynchronization(mySync)
So Willem we will get this improved in the future as well. You can do
it now but will be easier and nicer in Camel 2.1.
Or if we find the time then we can maybe make it for 2.0 as well. I
guess the main problem before holding it back was the old Async API
that just got to complex and broken. So I do envision it should be not
that hard to do now.
>
> BTW, Since Spring store the transaction information in the thread local
> variable , we need to make sure the rollback method is called in the
> same thread, so this is common user story in camel.
Yeah for transactions you should not mix threads. This problem can
occur if you use the async() DSL as it will submit a new task that are
executed in a new thread. But for the client API using the
ProducerTemplate there are no problem, as the transaction should
usually not span both the client + "camel".
But for sure that is something you should consider when doing transactions.
Everyting has its pros/cons. Also async messaging.
>
> Willem
>
> Claus Ibsen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
>>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Claus,
>>>>
>>>> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
>>>> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
>>>> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
>>>> come to mind...
>>>> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
>>>> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
>>>> are the two unrelated?
>>>> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
>>>> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
>>>> right?
>>> I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
>>> There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
>>>
>>> This option is an enum accepting 3 options
>>> - Always
>>> - Newer
>>> - IfReplyExpected
>>>
>>> The first two options is self describing.
>>> The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
>>>
>>> The current default is Always,
>> I have given it some more thought and changed the default to
>> IfReplyExpected, as its kinda what eg. JMS Mina and other components
>> also does already.
>>
>> BTW: I have created a new wiki page for all this new Async API. Anyone
>> care to read and review is much appreciated.
>> http://camel.apache.org/async
>>
>>
>>> However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
>>> Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>> Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
>>> If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
>>> they both wait.
>>>
>>> However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
>>> that be used for?
>>> Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
>>> wait, we will be notified
>>> of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
>>>> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
>>>> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
>>>> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
>>>> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
>>>> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
>>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Status update
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>>>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The remaining work:
>>>>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>>>>> DONE
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>>>>> DONE
>>>>>
>>>>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>>>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>>>>> executor service.
>>>>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>>> Interview with me:
>>> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Claus
I really enjoy to read the document that you write.
You give me a good explanation and compare of Camel Sync and Async
processing API.
Now I just have quick question for the replacement of old AsyncCallback
API Done().
Let's take the Asynchronous Request Only message sending as an example.
The user could want to know if the request is processed succeed, but he
doesn't want to his sending client checks every Feature object for
return message, he just want to register a simple call back method for
doing some revert work if the message can't be processed rightly.
How can the new Async API help us to implement this user story.
BTW, Since Spring store the transaction information in the thread local
variable , we need to make sure the rollback method is called in the
same thread, so this is common user story in camel.
Willem
Claus Ibsen wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
>> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Claus,
>>>
>>> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
>>> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
>>> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
>>> come to mind...
>>> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
>>> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
>>> are the two unrelated?
>>> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
>>> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
>>> right?
>> I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
>> There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
>>
>> This option is an enum accepting 3 options
>> - Always
>> - Newer
>> - IfReplyExpected
>>
>> The first two options is self describing.
>> The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
>>
>> The current default is Always,
> I have given it some more thought and changed the default to
> IfReplyExpected, as its kinda what eg. JMS Mina and other components
> also does already.
>
> BTW: I have created a new wiki page for all this new Async API. Anyone
> care to read and review is much appreciated.
> http://camel.apache.org/async
>
>
>> However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
>> Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>> Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
>> If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
>> they both wait.
>>
>> However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
>> that be used for?
>> Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
>> wait, we will be notified
>> of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
>>> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
>>> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
>>> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>>>
>>> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
>>> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
>>> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gert Vanthienen
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> Status update
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>>>
>>>>> The remaining work:
>>>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>>>> DONE
>>>>
>>>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>>>> DONE
>>>>
>>>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>>>> executor service.
>>>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>> Interview with me:
>> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>>
>
>
>
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
> <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Claus,
>>
>> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
>> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
>> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
>> come to mind...
>> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
>> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
>> are the two unrelated?
>
>> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
>> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
>> right?
>
> I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
> There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
>
> This option is an enum accepting 3 options
> - Always
> - Newer
> - IfReplyExpected
>
> The first two options is self describing.
> The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
>
> The current default is Always,
I have given it some more thought and changed the default to
IfReplyExpected, as its kinda what eg. JMS Mina and other components
also does already.
BTW: I have created a new wiki page for all this new Async API. Anyone
care to read and review is much appreciated.
http://camel.apache.org/async
>
> However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
> Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
> If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
> they both wait.
>
> However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
> that be used for?
> Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
> wait, we will be notified
> of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
>> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
>> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
>> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>>
>> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
>> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
>> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gert Vanthienen
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Status update
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining work:
>>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>>> DONE
>>>
>>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>>> DONE
>>>
>>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>>> executor service.
>>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> Apache Camel Reference Card:
> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
> Interview with me:
> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Gert Vanthienen
<ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Claus,
>
> Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
> java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
> it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
> come to mind...
> - How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
> have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
> are the two unrelated?
> - What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
> guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
> right?
I have just committed some improvements to the async DSL.
There is an option you can configure: waitForTaskToComplete.
This option is an enum accepting 3 options
- Always
- Newer
- IfReplyExpected
The first two options is self describing.
The last one will wait if the exchange is OUT capable, otherwise not.
The current default is Always,
However I am wondering if the default should be IfReplyExpected instead?
Then it works as JMS, Mina etc. that also only wait if a reply is expected.
What do people think?
Okay what is the difference between Always and IfReplyExpected then?
If for instance we send an InOut message then there are no difference,
they both wait.
However if we send an InOnly then only Always will wait. So what can
that be used for?
Well in case the async task failed with an exception, and since we
wait, we will be notified
of this exception and have a chance to react then. That is the difference.
Any thoughts?
> - Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
> means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
> are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
> waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
>
> Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
> concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
> transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gert Vanthienen
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> 2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> Status update
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>>
>>> The remaining work:
>>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
>> DONE
>>
>>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
>> DONE
>>
>>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>>> executor service.
>>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>>
>>
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Gert Vanthienen <ge...@gmail.com>.
Hi Claus,
Nice work on cleaning up the async API for Camel! Using well-known
java.util.concurrency classes to build the API is a good idea, makes
it a lot more comprehensible for people. Just a few questions that
come to mind...
- How does this work relate to introducing the Channel API? Will we
have a means for using async channels in the route transparently or
are the two unrelated?
- What happens with the original thread after the async()? I'm
guessing it will wait for the async work to be done before continuing,
right?
- Do all the threads come from a single thread pool? Do we have a
means to configure that pool? I guess my main question is, how likely
are we to deadlock the entire Route by having all the threads either
waiting on some Future or waiting to get another thread from the pool?
Just wondering if we could somehow put an Erlang-style message-passing
concurrency mechanism underneath our Route afterwards -- in a
transparent way so people wouldn't have to worry about this.
Regards,
Gert Vanthienen
------------------------
Open Source SOA: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gertvanthienen.blogspot.com/
2009/5/6 Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Status update
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
>> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>>
>> The remaining work:
>> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
> DONE
>
>> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
> DONE
>
>> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
>> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
>> executor service.
>> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>>
>
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Status update
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
> See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
>
> The remaining work:
> - Migrate MulticastProcessor
DONE
> - Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
DONE
> - Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
> of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
> executor service.
> - Support Jetty continuation with async
>
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I have committed first cut of the new Async API to Camel trunk.
See ticket CAMEL-1572 for svn revision and details.
The remaining work:
- Migrate MulticastProcessor
- Remove last piece of old API classes (2 interfaces)
- Introduce Async DSL to replace Thread DSL and with clear intention
of turning route into async mode and support thread pools using JDK
executor service.
- Support Jetty continuation with async
Should we mark the old API in Camel 1.x as @deprecated?
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just wanted to keep you posted.
>
> Had some more work done to replace the old async API with the new API
> in camel-core.
> I basically got it all done except the MuticastProcessor as it would
> take a bit more time to get done correctly.
> I am thinking it should leverage the JDK CompletionService or the like
> for keeping track on completed tasks.
>
> But for now I wanted to get the other parts working, and it looks good.
>
> The Thread DSL is to be replaced with a new Async DSL, so that is why
> I am deleting it from the code base.
>
> And I am going to merge the async producer template into the regular
> producer template so we have a single combined template for all
> producer sync and async.
> Its about 10 more methods.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I had some more time to work on this.
>> I have attached a 2nd patch on the JIRA ticket 1572.
>>
>> This time the patch is only focusing on the AsyncProducerTemplate. I
>> have added more methods to cover the most common methods use in
>> producer template.
>> With this an end user can initiate and async routing in Camel.
>>
>> If the user wants to use the regular Camel API (lookup endpoint,
>> create exchange, create producer, process etc.) there is a helper
>> method on AsyncProcessorHelper to initiate an async route as well.
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have committed a patch to trunk:
>>> that resolves #1 (partly), #2 and #4
>>>
>>> In #1 there are still two classes that needs a cleanup as well.
>>> However they are core pieces in Camel, the Pipeline and
>>> MulticastProcessor so they are left as is. When we have a new Async
>>> API in place these classes can be fixed as well.
>>>
>>> I have also attached a prototype for a patch for the new async API
>>> experiment I have done. See CAMEL-1572.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Claus Ibsen
>>> Apache Camel Committer
>>>
>>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>> Interview with me:
>> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> Apache Camel Reference Card:
> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
> Interview with me:
> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
Just wanted to keep you posted.
Had some more work done to replace the old async API with the new API
in camel-core.
I basically got it all done except the MuticastProcessor as it would
take a bit more time to get done correctly.
I am thinking it should leverage the JDK CompletionService or the like
for keeping track on completed tasks.
But for now I wanted to get the other parts working, and it looks good.
The Thread DSL is to be replaced with a new Async DSL, so that is why
I am deleting it from the code base.
And I am going to merge the async producer template into the regular
producer template so we have a single combined template for all
producer sync and async.
Its about 10 more methods.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I had some more time to work on this.
> I have attached a 2nd patch on the JIRA ticket 1572.
>
> This time the patch is only focusing on the AsyncProducerTemplate. I
> have added more methods to cover the most common methods use in
> producer template.
> With this an end user can initiate and async routing in Camel.
>
> If the user wants to use the regular Camel API (lookup endpoint,
> create exchange, create producer, process etc.) there is a helper
> method on AsyncProcessorHelper to initiate an async route as well.
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have committed a patch to trunk:
>> that resolves #1 (partly), #2 and #4
>>
>> In #1 there are still two classes that needs a cleanup as well.
>> However they are core pieces in Camel, the Pipeline and
>> MulticastProcessor so they are left as is. When we have a new Async
>> API in place these classes can be fixed as well.
>>
>> I have also attached a prototype for a patch for the new async API
>> experiment I have done. See CAMEL-1572.
>>
>> --
>> Claus Ibsen
>> Apache Camel Committer
>>
>> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
>> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
>> Apache Camel Reference Card:
>> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> Apache Camel Reference Card:
> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
> Interview with me:
> http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress
Re: Camel 2.0 Async Findings - Roadmap to a solution
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I had some more time to work on this.
I have attached a 2nd patch on the JIRA ticket 1572.
This time the patch is only focusing on the AsyncProducerTemplate. I
have added more methods to cover the most common methods use in
producer template.
With this an end user can initiate and async routing in Camel.
If the user wants to use the regular Camel API (lookup endpoint,
create exchange, create producer, process etc.) there is a helper
method on AsyncProcessorHelper to initiate an async route as well.
Any thoughts?
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have committed a patch to trunk:
> that resolves #1 (partly), #2 and #4
>
> In #1 there are still two classes that needs a cleanup as well.
> However they are core pieces in Camel, the Pipeline and
> MulticastProcessor so they are left as is. When we have a new Async
> API in place these classes can be fixed as well.
>
> I have also attached a prototype for a patch for the new async API
> experiment I have done. See CAMEL-1572.
>
> --
> Claus Ibsen
> Apache Camel Committer
>
> Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
> Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
> Apache Camel Reference Card:
> http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
>
--
Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Open Source Integration: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/davsclaus
Apache Camel Reference Card:
http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/enterprise-integration
Interview with me:
http://architects.dzone.com/articles/interview-claus-ibsen-about?mz=7893-progress