Create new message chain out of existing channels

I wish to create a message chain out of existing channels, without specifically write all the elements again.

Currently I have several long chains that overlaps one another with certain elements. Every time I add a new element, I have to add it in several chains. I wish to create a chain of channels, that can be called as a sequence.

To simplify, my applicationContext at the moment has 3 channels. channel 1 and channel 2, and channel 3 that consist of the two:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>

What I looking for is a simple solution that will enable me to do something like

<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <??? channel-1 />

    <??? channel-2 />

</int:chain>

Is there some simple way to do that?

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

add a comment |

I wish to create a message chain out of existing channels, without specifically write all the elements again.

To simplify, my applicationContext at the moment has 3 channels. channel 1 and channel 2, and channel 3 that consist of the two:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>

What I looking for is a simple solution that will enable me to do something like

<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <??? channel-1 />

    <??? channel-2 />

</int:chain>

Is there some simple way to do that?

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

add a comment |

I wish to create a message chain out of existing channels, without specifically write all the elements again.

To simplify, my applicationContext at the moment has 3 channels. channel 1 and channel 2, and channel 3 that consist of the two:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>

What I looking for is a simple solution that will enable me to do something like

<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <??? channel-1 />

    <??? channel-2 />

</int:chain>

Is there some simple way to do that?

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

I wish to create a message chain out of existing channels, without specifically write all the elements again.

To simplify, my applicationContext at the moment has 3 channels. channel 1 and channel 2, and channel 3 that consist of the two:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>

What I looking for is a simple solution that will enable me to do something like

<int:chain input-channel="channel-3">

    <??? channel-1 />

    <??? channel-2 />

</int:chain>

Is there some simple way to do that?

java spring-integration

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

edited Jan 2 at 10:18

Fábio Nascimento

1,0051219

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

asked Jan 2 at 10:13

Stempler

408

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

I think you've miss-interpreted the concepts of chain and channel.

The channel is at the core of pipes-and-filters as it is a pipe, so weather you use chain or not you still use channel. What chain allows you to do is to simplify the definition of the flow by letting you define a list of filter elements. Those elements are still connected with anonymous channels.

The explicit channels (e.g., <int:channel...>) are there specifically to be referenced, allowing several flows to intwine with one another by sending and or receiving messages to/from such channels.

So, hopefully you can see that creating chains from channels kind of goes against both pipes-and-filters architecture and the design of the framework which we tried to keep very consistent. In other words what I am reading from your post is that you have some flows that may be producers and/or consumers of other flows (wholly or partially) and if that's the case just use explicit channels.

Here is the simplified version of your flow:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1" output-channel="channel-1out">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:bridge input-channel="channel-1out" output-channel="channel-2"

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54004472%2fcreate-new-message-chain-out-of-existing-channels%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

I think you've miss-interpreted the concepts of chain and channel.

The channel is at the core of pipes-and-filters as it is a pipe, so weather you use chain or not you still use channel. What chain allows you to do is to simplify the definition of the flow by letting you define a list of filter elements. Those elements are still connected with anonymous channels.

The explicit channels (e.g., <int:channel...>) are there specifically to be referenced, allowing several flows to intwine with one another by sending and or receiving messages to/from such channels.

Here is the simplified version of your flow:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1" output-channel="channel-1out">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:bridge input-channel="channel-1out" output-channel="channel-2"

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

add a comment |

I think you've miss-interpreted the concepts of chain and channel.

The channel is at the core of pipes-and-filters as it is a pipe, so weather you use chain or not you still use channel. What chain allows you to do is to simplify the definition of the flow by letting you define a list of filter elements. Those elements are still connected with anonymous channels.

The explicit channels (e.g., <int:channel...>) are there specifically to be referenced, allowing several flows to intwine with one another by sending and or receiving messages to/from such channels.

Here is the simplified version of your flow:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1" output-channel="channel-1out">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:bridge input-channel="channel-1out" output-channel="channel-2"

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

add a comment |

I think you've miss-interpreted the concepts of chain and channel.

The channel is at the core of pipes-and-filters as it is a pipe, so weather you use chain or not you still use channel. What chain allows you to do is to simplify the definition of the flow by letting you define a list of filter elements. Those elements are still connected with anonymous channels.

The explicit channels (e.g., <int:channel...>) are there specifically to be referenced, allowing several flows to intwine with one another by sending and or receiving messages to/from such channels.

Here is the simplified version of your flow:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1" output-channel="channel-1out">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:bridge input-channel="channel-1out" output-channel="channel-2"

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

I think you've miss-interpreted the concepts of chain and channel.

The channel is at the core of pipes-and-filters as it is a pipe, so weather you use chain or not you still use channel. What chain allows you to do is to simplify the definition of the flow by letting you define a list of filter elements. Those elements are still connected with anonymous channels.

The explicit channels (e.g., <int:channel...>) are there specifically to be referenced, allowing several flows to intwine with one another by sending and or receiving messages to/from such channels.

Here is the simplified version of your flow:

<int:chain input-channel="channel-1" output-channel="channel-1out">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceA" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceB" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceC" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:chain input-channel="channel-2">

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceD" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceE" method="doService" />

    <int:service-activator ref="serviceF" method="doService" />

</int:chain>



<int:bridge input-channel="channel-1out" output-channel="channel-2"

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

edited Jan 2 at 20:06

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

answered Jan 2 at 11:24

Oleg Zhurakousky

1,88079

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

Search This Blog

Ufyukyu