Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, the consumer will be blocked for that particular transaction. The consumer can happily process other transactions in the meantime.

It's important to note is that no matter how you want to slice it, if instruction 1 never arrives, somehow you need a protocol to re-request it from upstream until you get it.

Whether that protocol lives in your middleware (e.g. an "at least once" message queue implementation that buffers messages and delivers them to your application in order) or in your consumer application logic (e.g. the application buffers messages and can send a request for a missing message over another channel), something is going to have to keep track of these things and buffer messages in the meantime.

This is why message queue middleware appears so convenient -- your application never has to see any of this complexity. I say appears because message queues can't do at least 3 things:

(a) It can't understand your application message processing order (which is NOT the same as your physical sending order): notice that how the message queue middleware and application determine if a message is missing are at fundamentally different levels of abstraction. The middleware can, at best, use e.g. sequence numbers or checkpoints to figure out a message is missing. An application has higher-order business knowledge about what the messages mean and so can determine if a message is missing much more intelligently. An application can also happily process other valid sequences of instructions without waiting for all preceding but possibly unrelated messages (e.g. it can accept an order for client A while still waiting for client B's full order to come through).

(b) Message queues DO drop messages so again without a higher-level protocol across the transaction sequence to manage this you will have a problem if you require all messages to be processed.

(c) You can't easily replay an event e.g. because your consumer stuffed up processing. It's true that many message queuing implementations can keep a duplicate journal and allow you to replay from there, but this is probably an opaque data store. You can probably inspect the message, but ultimately you will end up writing application-specific logic to figure out which message to replay, whether the copy of the message is retrieved from the message queue system or from upstream.

At that point, the end-to-end principle [1] applies and you start to wonder if all that intelligence in messages queues is a waste. I'm personally looking at moving over to using DDS for data distribution and RPC over DDS to do replay and reconciliation between publisher and consumer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact