qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajith Attapattu <rajit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Address validation Queues vs Topics
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:22:33 GMT
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robbie Gemmell
<robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to be clear, I have never been suggesting we remove
> 'destination.' entries from the equation. I think we should keep
> 'destination.' as we do have users already using it as its the only
> way to specify ADDRs in there,

The changes I'm proposing includes allowing both ADDR or BURL to be
specified for "queue" and "topics".
This will result in a concrete implementation of javax.jms.Queue or
javax.jms.Topic being returned.

As Rob points out, I think the pain in changing an existing
"destination" entry into a distinct "queue" or "topic" would force an
administrator to really think through the implications of the address
string entry.
We have lots of users who are confused with addressing and forcing
them to specify their address as a "queue" or a "topic" is going to
reduce a lot of pain for them down the line.

A huge plus is the simplicity we achieve in our code base by doing this.

> and its also still an important entry
> point for people using BURLs without the arbitary assignment to
> amq.topic or amq.direct exchanges. I just think we should fix it.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant here.
But to clarify, amq.topic doesn't imply Topics any more than
amq.direct implies Queue.
We could do Topic style messaging using amq.topic, amq.direct,
amq.fanout or any custom exchange.

The existing implementation of AMQQueue and AMQTopic is very limited
in that it assume amq.topic for Topics and amq.direct for Queues.

> We should make people using it with ADDRs specify what type of node
> they desire, but theres no reason not to let any users who are already
> doing that or anyone using BURLs just continue to have their code keep
> working. Only the users using ADDRs and 'destination.' who currently
> arent setting a node type would need to adjust, which they would all
> have to anyway if we ever removed it in favour of the other two
> varieties.

As for backwards compatibility,
Well for ADDR we can throw an exception unless a type is specified.

How do you propose we tackle BURL ?
Choose Queue or Topic based on the type of exchange being used ?
What if they use a custom exchange? how would we determine the type ?
This amounts to the magic we are already doing with address string
albeit with not so stellar results with TCK failures etc....
Instead of us trying to solve those headaches in the code,  lets
simplify it by asking the administrator to make a decision.

Even if we allow "destination" for backwards compatibility, I'm
strongly in favour of deprecating "destination" and making it quite
clear in release notes and documentation.

Again the pain of having to deal with Queue vs Topic is best handled
at configuration time by an administrator than us trying to do the
magic in the code.



> Robbie
> On 29 February 2012 15:46, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Robbie,
>> My preference is also to just use "queue" and "topic" qualifiers and
>> deprecate "destination" , hence listed it as option #1 in a previous
>> email.
>> I agree with you, Rob and Gordon that the above approach is simple,
>> easy and more importantly less buggy.
>> The reason I had "destination" in my summary is due to backwards compatibility.
>> However I agree with Rob that the pain of deprecating the
>> "destination"  qualifier is much less than having to deal with the
>> issues at the code level and the runtime issues a user might
>> encounter.
>> I will post the code soon for review.
>> Gentlemen, Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this.
>> Regards,
>> Rajith
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Robbie Gemmell
>> <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2012 17:35, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Based on the discussion I would like to outline the following proposal.
>>>> I believe it reflects the consensus so far. Please correct me if
>>>> anything is amiss.
>>>> 1. If the user wants to use the specialized interfaces (JMS 1.0) and
>>>> pass in either a Queue or a Topic, then they should be using "queue"
>>>> or "topic" in the jndi file.
>>>>   - This will result in a Destination impl being returned, that
>>>> implements either javax.jms.Queue or javax.jms.Topic depending on the
>>>> qualifier used.
>>>>   - These destinations can obviously be used with the JMS 1.1 methods
>>>> which expects the generic javax.jms.Destination.
>>>>   - If a "type" is specified and is different from the qualifier
>>>> being used, we will raise an exception highlighting the discrepancy.
>>>>         Ex. topic.my-topic="my-queue; {type : queue}"
>>> This seems reasonable yes.
>>>> 2. If "destination.<jndi-name>=<address>" is used,
>>>>   - This will return a Destination impl that only implements the
>>>> javax.jms.Destination.
>>>>   -  ** If this destination is used with JMS 1.0 methods, it will
>>>> result in a class cast exception.**
>>>>   - We will not attempt to determine if the address used here is a
>>>> JMS Topic or a JMS Queue.
>>>>   - If a "type" is specified with the address we will use that as a
>>>> hint when trying to check the presence of the node in the broker.
>>>>     Ex if hello; {type=topic}, for 0-10 we will attempt to see if
>>>> there is an exchange in the broker named "hello" and throw an
>>>> exception if no create instructions are given.
>>> This one I am less keen on. If a user specifies a type in their
>>> address string, then I think thats the type of object they should get,
>>> it shouldnt just be a hint used at some random point later when the
>>> Destination is used and we perform magic. If someone defined a
>>> 'destination.' entry saying that it is a queue, I would for example
>>> expect that to work when trying to create a QueueBrowser rather than
>>> throwing a ClassCastException. We had a user submit a patch just weeks
>>> ago to fix that exact use case.
>>> I think the scope for anyone getting a Destination object that didnt
>>> actually form a concreate Queue or Topic implementation should be
>>> absolutely minimal. I'd really rather prefer it didnt happen as I dont
>>> think it should ever be necessary for current use cases, and I'm a big
>>> fan of users actually having to ask for exactly what they want and
>>> then us trying to give them what they asked for. If what they asked
>>> for isnt compatible with whats found on the broker then I think thats
>>> when we throw an Exception telling them so, not when we start deciding
>>> things for them.
>>> Although JMS defines 'Destination', I really dont think it ever
>>> expects there to be direct implementations of it as it lists no
>>> methods, not even the mandated toString() 'representation of
>>> destination' as found on Queue and Topic. Destination was added to
>>> allow the new cross-domain Session objects in 1.1 to use of both
>>> existing Queue and Topic objects on a single session at the same time;
>>> there was no session.createDestination() method added along with it.
>>> The spec still deals with two domains, P2P and Pub/Sub, via the same
>>> old Queue and Topic types that now happen to also be Destinations.
>>> Do we know of any other providers who provide their users Destination
>>> objects which arent implementations of Queue or Topic? The idea had
>>> never entered my head previous to these Addressing discussions, so I
>>> am genuinely interested to know if there are.
>>> Robbie
>>>> Does this sound reasonable ? Please feel free to add/change anything I
>>>> have missed.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rajith
>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com>
>>>>> Rob,
>>>>> Addressing is indeed a pain point and most of it is due to grey areas
>>>>> causing undesirable side effects.
>>>>> I've got some work that I'm hoping to post today.
>>>>> Let me first check that into a branch and then I will post a brief
>>>>> outline of the design and the code in review board.
>>>>> I'm hoping to wrap this up in next 2 weeks.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Rajith
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com>
>>>>>> As an aside, I have been labeling the open Java Client JIRAs so its
>>>>>> easier to pick out clusters of JIRAs that can be worked on together
>>>>>> see where the real pain points are.  A quick report on open JIRAs
>>>>>> label:
>>>>>> 17 - addressing
>>>>>>  9 - failover
>>>>>>  9 - exception-handling
>>>>>>  4 - deadlock
>>>>>>  3 - timestamp
>>>>>>  3 - possibly_complete
>>>>>>  3 - message-credit
>>>>>>  3 - jms-compliance
>>>>>>  2 - serialization
>>>>>>  2 - documentation
>>>>>>  1 - examples
>>>>>>  1 - browsing
>>>>>>  1 - amqp_compliance
>>>>>> Addressing covers anything to do with Destinations (ADDR or BURL)
>>>>>> is clearly the major pain point... Rajith - I know you were working
>>>>>> a patch for this... what is the status of this work?
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>> On 28 February 2012 09:19, Rob Godfrey <rob.j.godfrey@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> On 28 February 2012 05:37, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> If the "queue" and "topic" qualifiers are used then I guess
it makes
>>>>>>>> it really easy for us to work out the validation.
>>>>>>>> What are we going to do with the "destination" qualifier
>>>>>>>> Ex destination.my-dest=<address-string>
>>>>>>>> 1. We deprecate this and get qpid users to use one of "queue"
>>>>>>>> "topic" as the administrator who writes the jndi file surely
>>>>>>>> what it's going to be.
>>>>>>>> 2. We create the destination but not allow it to be used
with any
>>>>>>>> methods that require the Queue or Topic interface.
>>>>>>> ^^ This - it should be created as a Destination that implements
>>>>>>> neither Queue nor Topic.
>>>>>>>> 3. Attempt to figure out if the address is a Topic or a Queue
based on
>>>>>>>> the current behaviour (as described in my first email) and
>>>>>>>> convert it a Queue or Topic if the Destination object is
passed to any
>>>>>>>> methods that require a Queue/Topic interface.
>>>>>>> As per my previous comment on the JIRA, I think it's not actually
>>>>>>> possible to determine from an address string what is a "topic"
>>>>>>> what is a "queue".  I can define a "queue" which distributes
>>>>>>> messages it hold to every consumer, and removes messages only
>>>>>>> every current consumer has irrevocably passed that message...
is this
>>>>>>> a "queue" or a "topic"?  From a JMS perspective it behaves exactly
>>>>>>> you would expect from a topic (especially in an AMQP 1-0 scenario
>>>>>>> where you can create durable subscribers with durable links).
>>>>>>> from an AMQP 0-x perspective this looks like a "queue".  (Indeed
on my
>>>>>>> AMQP 1-0 branch I have implemented exactly this type of "queue"
in the
>>>>>>> Java broker... in a class called "Topic" :-) ). Conversely I
>>>>>>> define an exchange type which for any given message will route
to *at
>>>>>>> most one* bound queue... this "work sharing exchange" has many
of the
>>>>>>> properties of a "queue" in JMS semantics, but looks like how
>>>>>>> currently implement "topics" in AMQP 0-x.
>>>>>>> Given the above I think it is fruitless and indeed even incorrect
>>>>>>> attempt to determine whether a given address satisfies JMS "Queue"
>>>>>>> JMS "Topic" semantics based on the address itself.
>>>>>>> -- Rob
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Rajith
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Rajith Attapattu <rajith77@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> As per the discussion on QPID-792, I'm moving the discussion
onto the
>>>>>>>>> dev list under.
>>>>>>>>> I have attempted to summarise the current behaviour and
some of the
>>>>>>>>> comments expressed by Rob and Robbie.
>>>>>>>>> Currently the clients (C++, python and JMS) resolves
an address (with
>>>>>>>>> the 0-10 protocol) as follows.
>>>>>>>>> 1. If the name resolves to a queue, we treat it as a
>>>>>>>>> 2. If the name resolves to an exchange, we treat is a
>>>>>>>>> 3. If it doesn't resolve to either, we treat it as a
>>>>>>>>> Rob made the following comments
>>>>>>>>> "I don't think that we should be trying to do this because
I'm pretty
>>>>>>>>> sure that it is impossible to determine what is a Queue
and what is a
>>>>>>>>> Topic.
>>>>>>>>> I think the closest we can come is to say that an address
that says
>>>>>>>>> you have to create a new temporary auto-delete exclusive
queue for
>>>>>>>>> every consumer should be treated as a topic... but the
converse is not
>>>>>>>>> true. As far as I am concerned the distinction between
Queue and Topic
>>>>>>>>> is something that only the "administrator" can determine,
and the code
>>>>>>>>> cannot determine dynamically."
>>>>>>>>> Robbie also expressed the following,
>>>>>>>>> "I also think that the (Java) client shouldnt be making
gueses as to
>>>>>>>>> whether something is a Queue or a Topic, as I'm sure
was fairly
>>>>>>>>> evident from previous mailings on the subject last year.
If that
>>>>>>>>> questionable behaviour is causing pain, then we should
at least
>>>>>>>>> consider simply not doing it. Destination is itself only
the parent
>>>>>>>>> interface of Queue and Topic, it doesnt actually offer
any methods
>>>>>>>>> (even the toString, though for backwards compatibility
>>>>>>>>> admitedly) and really only serves to allow creating Topic
and Queue
>>>>>>>>> consumers etc without having to have a specific Session
type. I
>>>>>>>>> realise forcing users to specify queue or topic in the
address string
>>>>>>>>> wouldnt be consistent with the other clients, but I do
think its worth
>>>>>>>>> noting that the Java client isn't entirely consistent
with the other
>>>>>>>>> clients for obvious reasons and trying to make it more
so isnt
>>>>>>>>> necessarily always going to be a helpful or useful thing."
>>>>>>>>> Rob, further states that we could utilize the queue and
>>>>>>>>> qualifiers that is currently present in our JNDI mechanism.
>>>>>>>>> "I don't think the queue/topic distinction even needs
to go into the
>>>>>>>>> address - it should only needs to be defined some way
in the JNDI
>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>> e.g. in a properties file then things that begin
>>>>>>>>> queue.<NAME>=<address string>
>>>>>>>>> would be queues, and
>>>>>>>>> topic.<NAME>=<address string>
>>>>>>>>> would be topics"
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Rajith
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>>>>>>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>>>>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>>>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

View raw message