[zeromq-dev] Malamute broker project
Pieter Hintjens
ph at imatix.com
Mon Mar 2 21:54:16 CET 2015
Sure, it'd work as subjects.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
<kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the two messages SET and GET that you're talking about? Are you
> saying that sendfor parameter char * address is "ADDRESS" and subject is
> "GET" or "SET" depending on whether or not there should be a read, with the
> contents being the actual "tcp://some_IP:some_port"? Or actually author the
> protocol for brokering where I use actual broker commands SET and GET?
>
> Is send_for exchangeable for send_forx in this context?
>
> I changed it to this, trying to follow mlm_client.c:
>
> char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic, std::string
> production_topic, std::string toSend) {
> mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
> assert(client_reader);
> mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
> assert(client_writer);
>
> int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" , 3000,
> "ADDRESS");
> assert(rc==0);
> rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" , 3000,
> "");
> assert(rc==0);
>
> std::cout << "producing to topic: " << production_topic << std::endl;
> std::cout << "consuming from topic: " << consumer_topic << std::endl;
> if (!mlm_client_sendtox(client_writer, "ADDRESS", "SET", toSend.c_str(),
> NULL)) {
> std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
> }
> else {
> std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
> }
>
>
> char *subject, *content, *attach;
> std::cerr << consumer_topic << " receiving message" << std::endl;
> mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content, &attach, NULL);
> mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
> mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
> std::cout << "received: \"" << subject << "\" :" << content << "." <<
> std::endl;
> zstr_free(&subject);
> return content;
> }
>
>
> I get one of the set messages, but
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, it's much more fun if you write this up.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I can help you with writing an article :)
>> >
>> > I was literally discovery what you were telling me, since sometimes,
>> > about
>> > 1/4 of the time, it would succeed. What you say rationalizes my
>> > considerations since I was literally writing you an email about what I
>> > was
>> > witnessing.
>> >
>> > Let me try to work out what you're saying, then I can post what I
>> > established to a public github repo :)
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The problem with streams is there's no persistence yet, so both peers
>> >> have to be present at the same time. A name registration/lookup
>> >> service is probably better.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the set_worker call offers a service. I'd do this:
>> >>
>> >> - offer a service "ADDRESS" using set_worker
>> >> - two messages: SET and GET, each taking a name/value (use frames or
>> >> any other encoding you like)
>> >> - use the sendfor method to send the request
>> >> - use the sendto method to send the replies, which end in a client's
>> >> mailbox
>> >> - read the replies using the recv method
>> >>
>> >> For this to work, peers need to specify a mailbox address in the
>> >> connect
>> >> method.
>> >>
>> >> If you like I'll write an article and make examples.
>> >>
>> >> -Pieter
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > I got it to work by setting the subscribed topic to "inproc*" on
>> >> > mlm_client_set_worker call.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >> > <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ok after looking at mlm_client.c, I have the following:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Two concurrent calls to exchange addresses with the following
>> >> >> parameters:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> //thread 1
>> >> >> char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("backendEndpoints",
>> >> >> "frontendEndpoints", "inproc://frontend");
>> >> >> //thread 2
>> >> >> char * servrAddr = exchange_addresses("frontendEndpoints",
>> >> >> "backendEndpoints", "inproc://backend");
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where exchange addresses is implemented as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> char * exchange_addresses(std::string consumer_topic, std::string
>> >> >> production_topic, std::string toSend) {
>> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >> assert(client_reader);
>> >> >> mlm_client_t *client_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >> assert(client_writer);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> int rc=mlm_client_connect (client_reader, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >> >> ,
>> >> >> 3000, "");
>> >> >> assert(rc==0);
>> >> >> rc=mlm_client_connect (client_writer, "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999" ,
>> >> >> 3000,
>> >> >> "");
>> >> >> assert(rc==0);
>> >> >>
>> >> >> std::cout << "producing to topic: " << production_topic <<
>> >> >> std::endl;
>> >> >> std::cout << "consuming from topic: " << consumer_topic <<
>> >> >> std::endl;
>> >> >> mlm_client_set_worker(client_reader, consumer_topic.c_str(), "*");
>> >> >> if (!mlm_client_sendforx (client_writer, production_topic.c_str(),
>> >> >> toSend.c_str(), "", NULL))
>> >> >> std::cout << "client sent message" << std::endl;
>> >> >> else
>> >> >> std::cerr << "error sending message" << std::endl;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> char *subject, *content, *attach;
>> >> >> mlm_client_recvx (client_reader, &subject, &content, NULL); //<--
>> >> >> blocking here
>> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_writer);
>> >> >> mlm_client_destroy(&client_reader);
>> >> >> std::cout << "received: " << subject << " " << content <<
>> >> >> std::endl;
>> >> >> return content;
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Problem is, both threads block at mlm_client_recvx... As per
>> >> >> example,
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> looks correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >> >> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Oh you mean with mlm_client_set_worker! Do I do set_worker on each
>> >> >>> side
>> >> >>> with different service names? How does a client get a specific
>> >> >>> service?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >> >>> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Service semantics? I don't know what those are...
>> >> >>>> I read what tutorials I think that there are. I have some
>> >> >>>> questions
>> >> >>>> about the how things are forwarded-I want only one to one
>> >> >>>> pairing...
>> >> >>>> I'm not
>> >> >>>> sure if what I'm doing is setting up for publishing and
>> >> >>>> subscriptions. There
>> >> >>>> was a lot of talk about some of the other features in the malamute
>> >> >>>> manual/whitepaper, and it's kind of confusing. Basically, I just
>> >> >>>> want
>> >> >>>> FCFS
>> >> >>>> exchange of information for mutually requiring parties.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The simplest way to make a lookup service is using the service
>> >> >>>>> semantics, and the lookup service can talk to the broker over
>> >> >>>>> inproc
>> >> >>>>> or tcp as it wants (it could be a thread in the same process, or
>> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >>>>> separate process).
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller
>> >> >>>>> <kennethadammiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> > So, in order to manage a mutual exchange of address between two
>> >> >>>>> > concurrent
>> >> >>>>> > parties, I thought that on each side I would have a producer
>> >> >>>>> > produce
>> >> >>>>> > to a
>> >> >>>>> > topic that the opposite side was subscribed to. That means that
>> >> >>>>> > each
>> >> >>>>> > side is
>> >> >>>>> > both a producer and a consumer.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > I have the two entities running in parallel. The front end
>> >> >>>>> > client
>> >> >>>>> > connects
>> >> >>>>> > to the malamute broker, and subscribes to the backendEndpoints
>> >> >>>>> > topic,
>> >> >>>>> > and
>> >> >>>>> > then producing it's endpoint to the frontendEndpoints topic.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > The opposite side does the same thing, with the back end
>> >> >>>>> > subscribing
>> >> >>>>> > to the
>> >> >>>>> > frontendEndpoints and producing to backendEndpoints.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > The problem is that if the front end and back end are in their
>> >> >>>>> > own
>> >> >>>>> > threads
>> >> >>>>> > then only the thread that completes the mlm_set_producer and
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_set_consumer call proceed. The one that didn't make it that
>> >> >>>>> > far
>> >> >>>>> > will
>> >> >>>>> > hang at that mlm_set_x pair point...
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > code:
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToFrontEnd" << std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_reader);
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *frontend_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >>>>> > assert(frontend_writer);
>> >> >>>>> > int rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_reader,
>> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >> >>>>> > ,
>> >> >>>>> > 1000, "reader/secret");
>> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect (frontend_writer,
>> >> >>>>> > "tcp://127.0.0.1:9999"
>> >> >>>>> > ,
>> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
>> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend mlm clients connected" << std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(frontend_reader, "backendEndpoints",
>> >> >>>>> > "*");
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(frontend_writer,
>> >> >>>>> > "frontendEndpoints");
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "frontend client producers and consumers set" <<
>> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > The code looks exactly* the same for the backend, but with some
>> >> >>>>> > variable and
>> >> >>>>> > other changes.
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "connectToBackEnd" << std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_reader = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_reader);
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_t *backend_writer = mlm_client_new();
>> >> >>>>> > assert(backend_writer);
>> >> >>>>> > int
>> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_reader,"tcp://127.0.0.1:9999",
>> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >> >>>>> > "reader/secret");
>> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >> >>>>> > rc=mlm_client_connect(backend_writer,"tcp://127.0.0.1:9999",
>> >> >>>>> > 1000,
>> >> >>>>> > "writer/secret");
>> >> >>>>> > assert(rc==0);
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend mlm clients connected" << std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_consumer(backend_reader, "frontendEndpoints",
>> >> >>>>> > "*");
>> >> >>>>> > mlm_client_set_producer(backend_writer, "backendEndpoints");
>> >> >>>>> > std::cout << "backend client producers and consumers set" <<
>> >> >>>>> > std::endl;
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > I only ever will see either "frontend client produces and
>> >> >>>>> > consumers
>> >> >>>>> > set" or
>> >> >>>>> > "backend client producers and consumers set".
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Pieter Hintjens <ph at imatix.com>
>> >> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> My assumption is that a broker that's doing a lot of service
>> >> >>>>> >> requests
>> >> >>>>> >> won't be showing costs of regular expression matching,
>> >> >>>>> >> compared
>> >> >>>>> >> to
>> >> >>>>> >> the
>> >> >>>>> >> workload.
>> >> >>>>> >>
>> >> >>>>> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Doron Somech
>> >> >>>>> >> <somdoron at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into the main
>> >> >>>>> >> >> server
>> >> >>>>> >> >> as
>> >> >>>>> >> >> it
>> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd rather
>> >> >>>>> >> >> design
>> >> >>>>> >> >> against
>> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> > Don't you worry about the matching performance which will
>> >> >>>>> >> > happen
>> >> >>>>> >> > on the
>> >> >>>>> >> > main
>> >> >>>>> >> > thread? Also a usage I can see is to use exact matching
>> >> >>>>> >> > (string
>> >> >>>>> >> > comparison)
>> >> >>>>> >> > over regular expression (I usually use exact matching), this
>> >> >>>>> >> > is
>> >> >>>>> >> > way I
>> >> >>>>> >> > think
>> >> >>>>> >> > the plugin model fits the service as well.
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Pieter Hintjens
>> >> >>>>> >> > <ph at imatix.com>
>> >> >>>>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Doron Somech
>> >> >>>>> >> >> <somdoron at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > So I went over the code, really liked it. Very simple.
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> Thanks. I like the plugin model, especially neat using CZMQ
>> >> >>>>> >> >> actors.
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > I have a question regarding services, for each stream you
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > are
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > using a
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > dedicate thread (actors) and one thread for managing
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > mailboxes.
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > However
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > (if
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > I understood correctly) for services you are doing the
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > processing
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > inside
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > the
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > server thread, why didn't you use an actor for each
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > service
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > or
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > actor
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > to
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > manage all services? I think the matching of services can
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > be
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > expensive
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > and
>> >> >>>>> >> >> > block the main thread.
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> I did it in actors and then moved it back into the main
>> >> >>>>> >> >> server
>> >> >>>>> >> >> as
>> >> >>>>> >> >> it
>> >> >>>>> >> >> was complexity for nothing (at that stage). I'd rather
>> >> >>>>> >> >> design
>> >> >>>>> >> >> against
>> >> >>>>> >> >> real use than against theory.
>> >> >>>>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> >> >> -Pieter
>> >> >>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> >> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>>> >> >> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >>>>> >> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>>> >> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >>>>> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >>>>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>>> >> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >>>>> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >>>>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >>>>> >
>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> >>>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> >> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > zeromq-dev mailing list
>> > zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>
More information about the zeromq-dev
mailing list