Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update MessageSequence Extension #74

Closed
pardahlman opened this issue Mar 29, 2016 · 1 comment
Closed

Update MessageSequence Extension #74

pardahlman opened this issue Mar 29, 2016 · 1 comment
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@pardahlman
Copy link
Owner

One weakness in how the MessageSequence extension is working is that it listens to messages with the same routing key as any other subscriber for that message. This means that if the message it is listening for is published a lot, it will receive it multiple times while still only being interested in a couple of those. When #73 is done, we should make sure that the extension binds for a specific message id ([routingkey].[globalmessageid). This way, only messages for the specific message sequence is routed to the queue. Once a message sequence is finished, it should remove the bindings for that sequence. As a consequence, to this we will have a slight performance hit in creating a sequence as it will have to make more roundtrips to the broker

pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2016
This is because when a message sequence is completed, we want to get the config
for a message type and we only have the type. Instead of constructing a generic
argument, I find it cleaner to add methods that takes a Type argument, too.
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Mar 30, 2016
This decreases the work load on the client by having the broker route
messages for global messages id that the client is interested in.
@pardahlman pardahlman added this to the 1.9.0 milestone Mar 30, 2016
@pardahlman pardahlman self-assigned this Mar 30, 2016
pardahlman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2016
Instead of concatinating finished+skipped.
@pardahlman
Copy link
Owner Author

Done!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant