[jira] [Comment Edited] (ARTEMIS-2587) ActiveMQ5-like dead letter strategy

["Adil Arif (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2587?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17038130#comment-17038130 ] 

Adil Arif edited comment on ARTEMIS-2587 at 2/17/20 7:51 AM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your team's approach to this problem by looking at the problem verse the implementation. I, too, feel that is the correct approach and eager to express it in that perspective.

Allow me to better explain myself through an example. For instance, say an enterprise has 100 queues. Without explicitly defining an address-setting for each queue, all messages from those 100 queues will go into a default address-setting that is configured. Out of the box, ActiveMQ Artemis would send all failed messages to the default DLQ queue. Enterprises may have an operations team or their developers utilize the console to view the messages in the queues for such errors. Should they see any errors they can act upon it. However, some queues error may have higher priority and should be immediately acted upon. Having the operations or developer teams to filter the messages in the console does allow those individuals to find the messages if they know what they are looking for. Say the DLQ has 2000 messages, it may not be feasible for those teams to know the new errors or critical errors and act upon it.

Perhaps understanding the goal of the Console can better help frame the ticket. Would your team consider the console as a tool for operations team or developers to utilize it as a monitoring solution? If not, then perhaps it may be more appropriate to have the dashboards and alerting mechanisms available in external products like ELK or Splunk. What are your thoughts?

I felt my response was late. I am available to jump on a conference call if you find it helpful you to better understand my point of view. Thank you!


was (Author: adila01):
I appreciate your team's approach to this problem by looking at the problem verse the implementation. I, too, feel that is the correct approach and eager to express it in that perspective.

Allow me to better explain myself through an example. For instance, say an enterprise has 100 queues. Without explicitly defining an address-setting for each queue, all messages from those 100 queues will go into a default address-setting that is configured. Out of the box, ActiveMQ Artemis would send all failed messages to the default DLQ queue. Enterprises would typically have an operations team or their developers utilize the console to view the messages in the queues for such errors. Should they see any errors they can act upon it. However, some queues error may have higher priority and should be immediately acted upon. Having the operations or developer teams to be able to filter the messages in the console does allow those individuals to find the messages if they know what they are looking for. Say the DLQ has 2000 messages, it may not be feasible for those teams to know the new errors or critical errors and act upon it.

Perhaps, understanding the goal of the Console can better help frame the ticket. Would your team consider the console as a tool for operations team or developers to utilize it as a monitoring solution? If not, then perhaps it may be more appropriate to have the dashboards and alerting mechanism be available in external products like ELK or Splunk. What are your thoughts?

I do feel my response was a bit late. I am available to jump on a conference call if you find it advantageous to help you better understand my point of view. Thank you!

> ActiveMQ5-like dead letter strategy
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ARTEMIS-2587
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2587
>             Project: ActiveMQ Artemis
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Broker
>            Reporter: Adil Arif
>            Priority: Major
>
> In ActiveMQ 5 there is an {{individualDeadLetterStrategy}} policy available for the [Dead Letter Strategy|http://activemq.apache.org/message-redelivery-and-dlq-handling.html], e.g.:
> {noformat}
>  <policyEntry queue=">">
>   <deadLetterStrategy>
>       <individualDeadLetterStrategy queuePrefix="DLQ." useQueueForQueueMessages="true"/>
>   </deadLetterStrategy>
> </policyEntry>{noformat}
> This feature allows organizations to implement standardized policies on a broker for ensuring each queue has its own equivalent dead letter queue in an easy to configure fashion.
> This feature has shown interest by others in the past on the [mailing list|http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Artemis-DLQ-strategy-td4710234.html] as well as [Red Hat's Knowledgebase |https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3140741].



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)