Monday, October 21, 2013

EasyNetQ: Big Breaking Changes in the Publish API


From version 0.15 the way that publish works in EasyNetQ has dramatically changed. Previously the client application was responsible for creating and disposing the AMQP channel for the publication, something like this:

using (var channel = bus.OpenPublishChannel())

There are several problems with this approach.

The practical ones are that it encourages developers to use far more channels than they need to. The codebases that I’ve looked at often have the pattern exactly as it’s given above, even if publish is invoked in a loop. Channel creation is relatively cheap, but it’s not free and frequent channel creation imposes a cost on the broker. However, if a developer tries to keep a channel open for a number of publish calls, they then have to deal with the complex scenario of recovering from a connection loss.

The more conceptual, design oriented problem, is that it fails in terms of EasyNetQ’s mission statement, which is to make building .NET applications with RabbitMQ as easy as possible. With the core (IBus) API, the developer shouldn’t have to be concerned about AMQP specifics like channel handling, the library should do all that for them.

From version 0.15, you don’t need to open a publish channel, simply call the new Publish method directly on the IBus interface:


Internally EasyNetQ maintains a single channel for all outgoing AMQP calls and marshals all client invocations onto a single internally maintained thread. So while EasyNetQ is thread-safe, all internal calls to the RabbitMQ.Client library are serialised. Consumers haven’t changed and are invoked from a separate thread.

The Request call has also been moved to the IBus API:

bus.Request<TestRequestMessage, TestResponseMessage>(new TestRequestMessage {Text = "Hello World!"},
    response => Console.WriteLine("Got response: " + response.Text));

The change also means that EasyNetQ can take full responsibility for channel reconnection in the event of connection failure and leads to a much nicer publisher confirms implementation which I’ll be blogging about soon.

Happy messaging!


Michael Denny said...

This is a great change, and I suppose we can change also the marshalling component by giving our implementation, for example to have a multiple channel marshalling. Thank you for efforts in this project!

Mike Hadlow said...

Hi Michael, yes you can inject your own version of IClientCommandDispatcher and IClientCommandDispatcherFactory if you want to change the threading and marshaling behavior.