james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Brewin" <sbre...@synsys.com>
Subject RE: Proposal: new approach to spooling
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:27:00 GMT
Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Hi

I think there is a lot of merit in coming up with a new queueing mechanism
and I know this has been discussed on and off for awhile. Still, I think
that before launching into concepts we should explain the benefits any
proposed change is seeking to achieve. Without putting words into your
mouth, might these be support for distributed operation, integration into
other service oriented architectures?

It would be better to clearly state the goals before we begin to ponder on
how we might implement such a thing.

Cheers

-- Steve
>
> Concepts:
>
>   - Each processor is a named queue entry.  This is
>     not a change from today, except that these may
>     be real queues in the JMS sense of the word if
>     the underlying queue manager uses JMS.  But the
>     approach should NOT be JSM/MQ specific.  It
>     should work just fine with JDBC-based queues.
>
>   - A queue entry would normally contain a JAMES Mail
>     object.  JavaMail Message objects would be
>     contained, or more likely referenced, by a JAMES
>     Mail object.  I say "normally" just in case we
>     want to permit other message types, e.g., JAMES
>     control messages, to be posted, since JAMES
>     processors effectively become services.
>
>   - Each processor is a transaction.  What this means
>     is that we can try to wrap a global transaction
>     around behavior within the processor.  This will
>     have some impact on Mailets, too.
>
>   - Each processor is associated with a queue manager
>     and, optionally, a retry schedule.
>
>   - I believe that a queue implementation independent
>     scheduler that provides the next time at which a
>     message should be processed may be sufficient.
>     Each queue entry would carry a timestamp before
>     which it should not be processed.  "Restarting"
>     the queue would be as simple as changing that
>     timestamp entry.
>
>   - A new RETRY Mail state can be set to rollback the
>     transaction and put the Mail back into the queue.
>     We should decide on commit and rollback semantics.
>
>   - The processor acquires a new attribute that explicitly
>     sets the fall-through state.  The default shall be the
>     new RETRY state, except for messages that exhause the
>     retry schedule.
>
> There are all sorts of ways to express this in XML, one of
> which might be:
>
>   <processor name="<queue-name>"
>              [onException="..."]
>              [fallthrough="<message-state>" def: RETRY]
>              [class="<class>" def: LinearProcessor] >
>
>     <queue [queueManager="<class>"> def: DefaultQueueManager] >
>       <!-- queue configuration -->
>     </queue>
>
>     <schedule [class="<class>" def: DefaultScheduler]>
>       <!-- see RemoteDelivery -->
>     </schedule>
>
>     <mailet ...>
>
>   </processor>
>
> Despite that this defines the queue manager as a child of the
> processor, we
> would invert that in code, with the queue manager calling the
> processor.  I
> believe that thread management is defined squarely on the
> queue manager.
>
> The concept still needs fleshing out, but I wanted to air the
> thoughts.
> This gives a lot of flexibility in implementation.  For
> example, one might
> implement a processor as an MDB.  The processor is
> responsible for workflow
> within the transaction, and for bridging between the queue
> manager and the
> mailet API.
>
> For this reason, I would not define interfaces for the queue
> manager and
> processor, but rather define semantics and responsibilities.
> The Mailet API
> is the inviolate API that all processors would be expected to
> support.  A
> processor would accept the queue entry from the queue
> manager, invoke the
> mailet pipeline, handle any exceptions, etc.  A queue manager
> would handle
> acquisition of appropriate entries from the queue queue,
> threading, calling
> the processor, etc.  I envision enhancements to the
> ToProcessor mailet, and
> related calls, and am still debating how queue aliases might
> be handled,
> which can be quite powerful.
>
> 	--- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message