How to ensure that a Text Message was sent via JMS succesfull? - c++

Question

i have wrote a Text Message Sender Program via JMS with C++ following.
tibems_status status = TIBEMS_OK;
status = tibemsMsgProducer_SendToDestination(
m_tProducer,
m_tDestination,
m_tMsg );
Suppose status == 0, this means only that Function has worked succesfull. It doesn't mean that my Text Message was sent succesfull
How can I ensure that my Message was sent succesfull? Should I get a ID or Acknowledge from JMS Queue back?

Answer 1

It depends on the Message Delivery Mode.
When a PERSISTENT message is sent, the tibemsMsgProducer_SendToDestination call will wait for the EMS server to reply with a confirmation.
When a NON_PERSISTENT message is sent, the tibemsMsgProducer_SendToDestination call may or may not wait for a confirmation depending on if authorization is enabled and the npsend_check_mode setting. See the EMS docs (linked above) for specific details.
Lastly, when a RELIABLE_DELIVERY message is sent, the tibemsMsgProducer_SendToDestination call does not wait for a confirmation and will only fail if the connection to the EMS server is lost.
However, even in the situations where a confirmation is sent, this is only confirmation that the EMS server has received the message. It does not confirm that the message was received and processed by the message consumer. EMS Monitoring Messages can be used to determine if the message was acknowledged by the consumer.
The message monitoring topics are in the form $sys.monitor.<D>.<E>.<destination>, where <D> matches Q|q|T|t, <E> matches s|r|a|p|\* and <destination> is the name of the destination. For instance to monitor for message acknowledgment for the queue named beterman, your program would subscribe to $sys.monitor.q.a.beterman (or $sys.monitor.Q.a.beterman if you want a copy of the message that was acknowledged).
The monitoring messages contain many properties, including the msg_id, source_name and target_name. You can use that information to correlate it back to the message you sent.
Otherwise, the simpler option is to use a tibemsMsgRequestor instead of a tibemsMsgProducer. tibemsMsgRequestor_Request will send the message and wait for a reply from the recipient. In this case you are best to use RELIABLE_DELIVERY and NO_ACKNOWLEDGE to remove all the confirmation and acknowledgement messages between the producer and the EMS server and the EMS server and the consumer.
However, if you do go down the tibemsMsgRequestor route, then you may also want to consider simply using a HTTP request instead, with a load balancer in place of the EMS server. Architecturally there isn't much difference between the two options (EMS uses persistent TCP connections, HTTP doesn't)
Producer -> EMS Server -> ConsumerA
-> ConsumerB
Client -> Load Balancer -> ServerA
-> ServerB
But with HTTP you have clear semantics for each of the methods. GET is safe (does not change state), PUT and DELETE are idempotent (multiple identical requests should have the same effect as a single request), and POST is non-idempotent (it causes a change in server state each time it is performed), etc. You also have well defined status codes. If you're using tibemsMsgRequestor you'll need to create bespoke semantics and response status, which will require extra effort to create, maintain and to train the other developers in your team on.
Also, it far easier to find developers with HTTP skills than EMS skills and it's far easier to find information HTTP that EMS, so the tibemsMsgRequestor option will make recruiting more difficult and problem solving issues more difficult.
Because of this HTTP is a better option IMO, for request-reply or for when you want to ensure that that the message sent was processed successfully.