I exposed 2 api's
/endpoint/A and /endpoint/B .
#GetMapping("/endpoint/A")
public ResponseEntity<ResponseA> controllerA() throws InterruptedException {
ResponseA responseA = serviceA.responseClient();
return ResponseEntity.ok().body(responseA);
}
#GetMapping("/endpoint/B")
public ResponseEntity<ResponseA> controllerB() throws InterruptedException {
ResponseA responseB = serviceB.responseClient();
return ResponseEntity.ok().body(responseB);
}
Services implemented regarding endpoint A internally call /endpoint/C and endpoint B internally call /endpoint/D.
As external service /endpoint/D taking more time i.e getting response from /endpoint/A takes more time hence whole threads are stucked that is affecting /endpoint/B.
I tried to solve this using executor service having following implementation
#Bean(name = "serviceAExecutor")
public ThreadPoolTaskExecutor serviceAExecutor(){
ThreadPoolTaskExecutor taskExecutor = new ThreadPoolTaskExecutor();
taskExecutor.setCorePoolSize(100);
taskExecutor.setMaxPoolSize(120);
taskExecutor.setQueueCapacity(50);
taskExecutor.setKeepAliveSeconds(120);
taskExecutor.setThreadNamePrefix("serviceAExecutor");
return taskExecutor;
}
Even after implementing this if I received more than 200 request on /endpoint/A simultaneously (greater than default max number of threads in Tomcat server) then I am not getting responses from /endpoint/B as all threads are busy for getting response from endpoint A or in queue.
Can someone plz suggest is there any way to apply bucketization on each exposed endpoint level and allow only limited request to process at a time & put remaining into bucket/queue so that request on other endpoints can work properly ?
Edit:- following is solution approach
#GetMapping("/endpoint/A")
public CompletableFuture<ResponseEntity<ResponseA>> controllerA() throws InterruptedException {
return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(()->controllerHelperA());
}
#GetMapping("/endpoint/B")
public CompletableFuture<ResponseEntity<ResponseB>> controllerB() throws InterruptedException {
return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(()->controllerHelperB());
}
private ResponseEntity<ResponseA> controllerHelperA(){
ResponseA responseA = serviceA.responseClient();
return ResponseEntity.ok().body(responseA);
}
private ResponseEntity<ResponseB> controllerHelperB(){
ResponseB responseB = serviceB.responseClient();
return ResponseEntity.ok().body(responseB);
}
Spring MVC supports the async servlet API introduced in Servlet API 3.0. To make it easier when your controller returns a Callable, CompletableFuture or DeferredResult it will run in a background thread and free the request handling thread for further processing.
#GetMapping("/endpoint/A")
public CompletableFuture<ResponseEntity<ResponseA>> controllerA() throws InterruptedException {
return () {
return controllerHelperA();
}
}
private ResponseEntity<ResponseA> controllerHelperA(){
ResponseA responseA = serviceA.responseClient();
return ResponseEntity.ok().body(responseA);
}
Now this will be executed in a background thread. Depending on your version of Spring Boot and if you have configured your own TaskExecutor it will either
use the SimpleAsycnTaskExecutor (which will issue a warning in your logs),
the default provided ThreadPoolTaskExecutor which is configurable through the spring.task.execution namespace
Use your own TaskExecutor but requires additional configuration.
If you don't have a custom TaskExecutor defined and are on a relatively recent version of Spring Boot 2.1 or up (IIRC) you can use the following properties to configure the TaskExecutor.
spring.task.execution.pool.core-size=20
spring.task.execution.pool.max-size=120
spring.task.execution.pool.queue-capacity=50
spring.task.execution.pool.keep-alive=120s
spring.task.execution.thread-name-prefix=async-web-thread
Generally this will be used to execute Spring MVC tasks in the background as well as regular #Async tasks.
If you want to explicitly configure which TaskExecutor to use for your web processing you can create a WebMvcConfigurer and implement the configureAsyncSupport method.
#Configuration
public class AsyncWebConfigurer implements WebMvcConfigurer {
private final AsyncTaskExecutor taskExecutor;
public AsyncWebConfigurer(AsyncTaskExecutor taskExecutor) {
this.taskExecutor=taskExecutor;
}
public void configureAsyncSupport(AsyncSupportConfigurer configurer) {
configurer.setTaskExecutor(taskExecutor);
}
}
You could use an #Qualifier on the constructor argument to specify which TaskExecutor you want to use.
Related
this is a follow-up question to Spring Integration AWS RabbitMQ Kinesis
I have the following configuration. I am noticing that when I send a message to the input channel named kinesisSendChannel for the first time, the aggregator and release strategy is getting invoked and messages are sent to Kinesis Streams. I put debug breakpoints at different places and could verify this behavior. But when I again publish messages to the same input channel the release strategy and the outbound processor are not getting invoked and messages are not sent to the Kinesis. I am not sure why the aggregator flow is getting invoked only the first time and not for subsequent messages. For testing purpose , the TimeoutCountSequenceSizeReleaseStrategy is set with count as 1 & time as 60 seconds. There is no specific MessageStore used. Could you help identify the issue?
#Bean(name = "kinesisSendChannel")
public MessageChannel kinesisSendChannel() {
return MessageChannels.direct().get();
}
#Bean(name = "resultChannel")
public MessageChannel resultChannel() {
return MessageChannels.direct().get();
}
#Bean
#ServiceActivator(inputChannel = "kinesisSendChannel")
public MessageHandler aggregator(TestMessageProcessor messageProcessor,
MessageChannel resultChannel,
TimeoutCountSequenceSizeReleaseStrategy timeoutCountSequenceSizeReleaseStrategy) {
AggregatingMessageHandler handler = new AggregatingMessageHandler(messageProcessor);
handler.setCorrelationStrategy(new ExpressionEvaluatingCorrelationStrategy("headers['foo']"));
handler.setReleaseStrategy(timeoutCountSequenceSizeReleaseStrategy);
handler.setOutputProcessor(messageProcessor);
handler.setOutputChannel(resultChannel);
return handler;
}
#Bean
#ServiceActivator(inputChannel = "resultChannel")
public MessageHandler kinesisMessageHandler1(#Qualifier("successChannel") MessageChannel successChannel,
#Qualifier("errorChannel") MessageChannel errorChannel, final AmazonKinesisAsync amazonKinesis) {
KinesisMessageHandler kinesisMessageHandler = new KinesisMessageHandler(amazonKinesis);
kinesisMessageHandler.setSync(true);
kinesisMessageHandler.setOutputChannel(successChannel);
kinesisMessageHandler.setFailureChannel(errorChannel);
return kinesisMessageHandler;
}
public class TestMessageProcessor extends AbstractAggregatingMessageGroupProcessor {
#Override
protected Object aggregatePayloads(MessageGroup group, Map<String, Object> defaultHeaders) {
final PutRecordsRequest putRecordsRequest = new PutRecordsRequest().withStreamName("test-stream");
final List<PutRecordsRequestEntry> putRecordsRequestEntry = group.getMessages().stream()
.map(message -> (PutRecordsRequestEntry) message.getPayload()).collect(Collectors.toList());
putRecordsRequest.withRecords(putRecordsRequestEntry);
return putRecordsRequestEntry;
}
}
I believe the problem is here handler.setCorrelationStrategy(new ExpressionEvaluatingCorrelationStrategy("headers['foo']"));. All your messages come with the same foo header. So, all of them form the same message group. As long as you release group and don’t remove it, all the new messages are going to be discarded.
Please, revise aggregator documentation to make yourself familiar with all the possible behavior : https://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/current/reference/html/message-routing.html#aggregator
I have a message producer which produces around 15 messages/second
The consumer is a spring integration project which consumes from the Message Queue and does a lot of processing. I have used the Executor channel to process messages in parallel and then the flow passes through some common handler class.
Please find below the snippet of code -
baseEventFlow() - We receive the message from the EMS queue and send it to a router
router() - Based on the id of the message" a particular ExecutorChannel instance is configured with a singled-threaded Executor. Every ExecutorChannel is going to be its dedicated executor with only single thread.
skwDefaultChannel(), gjsucaDefaultChannel(), rpaDefaultChannel() - All the ExecutorChannel beans are marked with the #BridgeTo for the same channel which starts that common flow.
uaEventFlow() - Here each message will get processed
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow baseEventFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows
.from(Jms.messageDrivenChannelAdapter(Jms.container(this.emsConnectionFactory, this.emsQueue).get()))
.wireTap(FLTAWARE_WIRE_TAP_CHNL)
.route(router()).get();
}
public AbstractMessageRouter router() {
return new AbstractMessageRouter() {
#Override
protected Collection<MessageChannel> determineTargetChannels(Message<?> message) {
if (message.getPayload().toString().contains("\"id\":\"RPA")) {
return Collections.singletonList(skwDefaultChannel());
}else if (message.getPayload().toString().contains("\"id\":\"ASH")) {
return Collections.singletonList(rpaDefaultChannel());
} else if (message.getPayload().toString().contains("\"id\":\"GJS")
|| message.getPayload().toString().contains("\"id\":\"UCA")) {
return Collections.singletonList(gjsucaDefaultChannel());
} else {
return Collections.singletonList(new NullChannel());
}
}
};
}
#Bean
#BridgeTo("uaDefaultChannel")
public MessageChannel skwDefaultChannel() {
return MessageChannels.executor(SKW_DEFAULT_CHANNEL_NAME, Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1)).get();
}
#Bean
#BridgeTo("uaDefaultChannel")
public MessageChannel gjsucaDefaultChannel() {
return MessageChannels.executor(GJS_UCA_DEFAULT_CHANNEL_NAME, Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1)).get();
}
#Bean
#BridgeTo("uaDefaultChannel")
public MessageChannel rpaDefaultChannel() {
return MessageChannels.executor(RPA_DEFAULT_CHANNEL_NAME, Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1)).get();
}
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow uaEventFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from("uaDefaultChannel")
.wireTap(UA_WIRE_TAP_CHNL)
.transform(eventHandler, "parseEvent")
.handle(uaImpl, "process").get();
}
My concern is in the uaEVentFlow() the common transform and handler method are not thread safe and it may cause issue. How can we ensure that we inject a new transformer and handler at every message invocation?
Should I change the scope of the transformer and handler bean as prototype?
Instead of bridging to a common flow, you should move the .transform() and .handle() to each of the upstream flows and add
#Scope(ConfigurableBeanFactory.SCOPE_PROTOTYPE)
to their #Bean definitions so each gets its own instance.
But, it's generally better to make your code thread-safe.
I have developed own idGenerator based on Hazelcast IdGenerator class (with storing each last_used_id into db). Now I want to run hazelcast cluster as a single java application and my web-application as other app (web-application restart shouldn't move id values to next block). I move MyIdGeneratorProxy and MyIdGeneratorService to new application, run it, run web-application as a hazelcast-client and get
IllegalArgumentException: No factory registered for service: ecs:impl:idGeneratorService
It was okay when client and server were the same application.
It seems it's unable to process without some clientProxy. I have compared IdGeneratorProxy and ClientIdGeneratorProxy and it looks the same. What is the idea? How to write client proxy for services? I have found no documentation yet. Is direction of investigations correct? I thought it is possible to divide hazelcast inner services (like a id generator service) and my business-processes. Should I store custom ClientProxy (for custom spi) in my web-application?
This is a demo how to create a client proxy, the missing part CustomClientProxy function call, is quit complicated(more like a server proxy,here is called ReadRequest, the server is called Operation), you can find a how AtomicLong implement.For every client proxy method you have to make a request.
#Test
public void client() throws InterruptedException, IOException
{
ClientConfig cfg = new XmlClientConfigBuilder("hazelcast-client.xml").build();
ServiceConfig serviceConfig = new ServiceConfig();
serviceConfig.setName(ConnectorService.NAME)
.setClassName(ConnectorService.class.getCanonicalName())
.setEnabled(true);
ProxyFactoryConfig proxyFactoryConfig = new ProxyFactoryConfig();
proxyFactoryConfig.setService(ConnectorService.NAME);
proxyFactoryConfig.setClassName(CustomProxyFactory.class.getName());
cfg.addProxyFactoryConfig(proxyFactoryConfig);
HazelcastInstance hz = HazelcastClient.newHazelcastClient(cfg);
Thread.sleep(1000);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Connector c = hz.getDistributedObject(ConnectorService.NAME, "Connector:" + ThreadLocalRandom.current()
.nextInt(10000));
System.out.println(c.snapshot());
}
}
private static class CustomProxyFactory implements ClientProxyFactory
{
#Override
public ClientProxy create(String id)
{
return new CustomClientProxy(ConnectorService.NAME, id);
}
}
private static class CustomClientProxy extends ClientProxy implements Connector
{
protected CustomClientProxy(String serviceName, String objectName)
{
super(serviceName, objectName);
}
#Override
public ConnectorState snapshot()
{
return null;
}
#Override
public void loadState(ConnectorState state)
{
}
#Override
public boolean reconnect(HostNode node)
{
return false;
}
#Override
public boolean connect()
{
return false;
}
}
EDIT
In hazelcast the IdGenerate is implemented as a wrapper for AtomicLong, you should implement you IdGenerate by you own, instead of extend IdGenerate.
So you have to implement these(more like a todo list XD):
API
interface MyIdGenerate
Server
MyIdGenerateService
MyIdGenerateProxy
MyIdGenerateXXXOperation
Client
ClientMyIdGenerateFactory
ClientMyIdGenerateProxy
MyIdGenerateXXXRequest
I also made a sequence(same as IdGenerate) here, this is backed by zookeeper or redis,also it's easy to add a db backend,too.I will integrate to hazelcast if I got time.
I am trying to write a simple message flow using Spring Integration v4's DSL APIs which would look like this:
-> in.ch -> Processing -> JmsGatewayOut -> JMS_OUT_QUEUE
Gateway
<- out.ch <- Processing <- JmsGatewayIn <- JMS_IN_QUEUE
With the request/response being asynchronous, when I inject a message via the initial Gateway, the message goes all the way to JMS_OUT_QUEUE. Beyond this message flow, a reply message is put back into JMS_IN_QUEUE which it is then picked up by JmsGatewayIn. At this point, the message is Processed and placed into out.ch (I know the response gets to out.ch because I have a logger interceptor there which logs the message being placed there) but, the Gateway never receives the response.
Instead of a response, the system outside of this message flow which picked up the message from JMS_OUT_QUEUE and placed the response in JMS_IN_QUEUE, receives a javax.jms.MessageFormatException: MQJMS1061: Unable to deserialize object on its own JmsOutboundgateway (I think it is failing to deserialize a jms reply object from looking at the logs).
I have clearly not got something configured correctly but I don't know exactly what. Does anyone know what I am missing?
Working with spring-integration-core-4.0.3.RELEASE, spring-integration-jms-4.0.3.RELEASE, spring-integration-java-dsl-1.0.0.M2, spring-jms-4.0.6.RELEASE.
My Gateway is configured as follows:
#MessagingGateway
public interface WsGateway {
#Gateway(requestChannel = "in.ch", replyChannel = "out.ch",
replyTimeout = 45000)
AResponse process(ARequest request);
}
My Integration flow is configured as follows:
#Configuration
#EnableIntegration
#IntegrationComponentScan
#ComponentScan
public class IntegrationConfig {
#Bean(name = "in.ch")
public DirectChannel inCh() {
return new DirectChannel();
}
#Bean(name = "out.ch")
public DirectChannel outCh() {
return new DirectChannel();
}
#Autowired
private MQQueueConnectionFactory mqConnectionFactory;
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow requestFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from("in.ch")
.handle("processor", "processARequest")
.handle(Jms.outboundGateway(mqConnectionFactory)
.requestDestination("JMS_OUT_QUEUE")
.correlationKey("JMSCorrelationID")
.get();
}
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow responseFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from(Jms.inboundGateway(mqConnectionFactory)
.destination("JMS_IN_QUEUE"))
.handle("processor", "processAResponse")
.channel("out.ch")
.get();
}
}
Thanks for any help on this,
PM.
First of all your configuration is bad:
Since you start the flow from WsGateway#process you really should wait reply there.
The gateway's request/reply capability is based on TemporaryReplyChannel, which is placed to the headers as non-serializable value.
As long as you wait rely on that gateway, actually there is no reason to provide the replyChannel, if you aren't going to do some publish-subscribe logic on the reply.
As you send message to the JMS queue, you should understand that consumer part might be a separete remote application. And the last one might know nothing about your out.ch.
The JMS request/reply capability is really based on JMSCorrelationID, but it isn't enough. The one more thing here is a ReplyTo JMS header. Hence, if you are going to send reply from the consumer you should really just rely on the JmsGatewayIn stuff.
So I'd change your code to this:
#MessagingGateway
public interface WsGateway {
#Gateway(requestChannel = "in.ch", replyTimeout = 45000)
AResponse process(ARequest request);
}
#Configuration
#EnableIntegration
#IntegrationComponentScan
#ComponentScan
public class IntegrationConfig {
#Bean(name = "in.ch")
public DirectChannel inCh() {
return new DirectChannel();
}
#Autowired
private MQQueueConnectionFactory mqConnectionFactory;
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow requestFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from("in.ch")
.handle("processor", "processARequest")
.handle(Jms.outboundGateway(mqConnectionFactory)
.requestDestination("JMS_OUT_QUEUE")
.replyDestination("JMS_IN_QUEUE"))
.handle("processor", "processAResponse")
.get();
}
}
Let me know, if it is appropriate for you or try to explian why you use two-way gateways for one one-way cases. Maybe Jms.outboundAdapter() and Jms.inboundAdapter() are more good for you?
UPDATE
How to use <header-channels-to-string> from Java DSL:
.enrichHeaders(e -> e.headerChannelsToString())
I want to use a thread pool in a web application which should support large number of users concurrently (~3000 users). I am invoking a web service in a separate thread which I am executing using a thread pool. Whenever the web service is not able to send the response, the thread gets stuck. So I want to stop/timeout the thread after 150 Milli-seconds. This is what I am doing right now:
the custom thread:
public class RetrieveDocTask implements Runnable {
public void run() {
//gather variables
//invoke webservice
}}
The filter which executes the threads:
public class DocFilter implements Filter {
private static ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public void doFilter(ServletRequest request, ServletResponse response, FilterChain chain) throws IOException, ServletException {
RetrieveDocTask task=new RetrieveDocTask();
executor.execute(task);
}}
I browsed the internet for solutions and none of them worked for me. Some said use Future and callable while some asked to create ThreadPoolExecutor and specify the timeout. Don't know why it was not working.
Also, will it be fine to use cached pool executor for large number of users. I am new to this and need to implement it as soon as possible.
Indeed a Future is what you need here. Suppose that your class RetriveDoc returns a string actually.
private static final class RetrieveDoc implements Callable<String>{
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
//do some computation and retirieve doc
return "DocAsString";
}
}
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
Future<String> futureResponse = service.submit(new RetrieveDoc());
//this will blokc for only 150 milliseconds
String response = null;
try{
response = futureResponse.get(150, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch(TimeoutException e){
System.out.println("TimeoutException happended");
}
if(response == null){
//do something
}