![]() ![]() And many of the Fortune 100 are using it as well (yes, including one really big pharmaceutical distributor and its recently spun off healthcare technology company). I will say, based on support information gathered (most of it public, but some via private email) that MassTransit is used in production systems at well over 1,000 organizations across the globe. make frameworks a strong value proposition. On top of that, features like consumers, persistent sagas, routing slips, serialization, etc. Benefits like being able to unit test in-memory and decoupling from the transport while retaining control over the specific broker technology are very useful. I thought I'd drop in and add a few comments.įirst, definitely use a framework around your transport. Thank you all, I appreciate the love for MassTransit being shared. If you have nego turned on, it takes several messages back and forth between client and service. The reason is that window's sspi api makes you build a context in steps. The first message from a client goes to the public queue, subsequent messages go to the private queue until the conversation is over. Right now my method is to have each auth service instance listen on the main auth queue for initial requests but also every auth service instance has their own private rabbit queue that they redirect replies to. I'm doing r and d for my own microservice system using rabbit, so I'm trying to figure this out. If you're curious, this is to implement Windows Integrated Auth, using Nsspi, which I'm the author of. ![]() If the service dies during the conversation, the whole thing has to start over from scratch. After that, all state for that request is bound to that machine. This is a case where the service has to open a native handle bound to that machine to service the request. In the last post, I'll look ahead to see how our situation may improve with gulp Kubernetes.Do you know if it's possible in MT to bind a conversation to a particular node? The conservation is usually about 4-5 messages long before the transaction is complete. While an Azure Function isn't close to a "PaaS Message Endpoint", it is close to a "PaaS Message Handler", and that might be sufficient for your needs. Neither of these options are great, but for very simple message handlers, an Azure Function can suffice. Now we can reply, publish, defer, set timeouts, kick off sagas, all inside the full-featured NServiceBus message endpoint. Now inside of our message handler, we get the full IMessageHandlerContext, and not just the ExecutionContext of a function, which is fairly limited. Return context.SendLocal(new FollowupMessage()) Log.LogInformation($"C# ServiceBus topic trigger function processed message: ") Public static SayFunctionSomethingResponse Run( Here's one for a simple request/response: public static class SayFunctionSomethingHandler In any case, you can now create a function with Many Attributes. That's because the WebJobs triggers and Functions triggers share the same infrastructure, but with a different hosting/deployment model. Yes it's a little odd - you're adding a package for "WebJobs" but this is a Functions application. All this really does behind the scenes is create a project with the correct NuGet package references: With Azure Functions, with their own special SDK package, you're creating a "Functions" project and choosing the "Azure Service Bus" trigger. The other option is a pre-release version of the NServiceBus support for Azure Functions, which dramatically alters the development model of functions itself and you're back to developing message handlers (instead of merely functions).įirst, let's look at the out-of-the-box binding. When I'm building endpoints, the handler is just one piece of the puzzle - I have the host configuration, logging, tracing, error handling, and beyond that, complex messaging patterns. It may seem like a small difference, but it's really not. You're not really building an endpoint here, but a single function. The most basic choice is the Azure Service Bus binding for Azure Functions. Something needs to kick off our endpoint, and for this, we have a couple of choices. The programming and hosting model is vastly different than containers or web jobs, so we first need to understand how our function will get triggered. So far, the answer is "not really", but it will highly depend on your workload or needs. I can scale, but I can't auto-scale, and even if I used Kubernetes, I can't scale based on exceeding my lead time SLA (time from when a message enters the queue until when it is consumed).īut what about the serverless option of Azure, Azure Functions? Can this offer me a better experience for building a message endpoint? While fairly straightforward, this approach is fairly close to Infrastructure-as-a-Service. In our last post, we looked at deploying message endpoints in containers, eventually out to Azure Container Instances.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |