Skip to content

Adding support for outbound EventMessage filtering #2933

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
bsanders1979 wants to merge 1 commit into
base: axon-4.5.x
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Adding support for outbound EventMessage filtering #2933

bsanders1979 wants to merge 1 commit into from
+34 −4

Conversation

@bsanders1979
Copy link

@bsanders1979 bsanders1979 commented Dec 6, 2023

These are the changes I made to support my use-case of not wanting to publish certain events to AxonServerEventStore to alleviate possible quota issues. I don't anticipate this feature being used outside of the context of migrating to this kind of event store. But, anything is possible I imagine. I was getting errors in DefaultConfigurer and back ported the 4.6 version of code, so you can ignore that bit. I had to check that filteredEvents wasn't empty before passing the value along because it was causing a timeout in my code.

This is how my Spring (non-Boot) config looks now...

public Configuration serverConfiguration(AxonServerConfiguration axonServerConfiguration) {
    return DefaultConfigurer.defaultConfiguration()
        ...
        .configureEventStore(this::buildEventStore)
        ...
        .start();
}

private AxonServerEventStore buildEventStore(Configuration c) {
    return AxonServerEventStore.builder()
       .configuration(c.getComponent(AxonServerConfiguration.class))
       .platformConnectionManager(c.getComponent(AxonServerConnectionManager.class))
       .messageMonitor(c.messageMonitor(AxonServerEventStore.class, "eventStore"))
       .snapshotSerializer(c.serializer())
       .eventSerializer(c.eventSerializer())
       .snapshotFilter(c.snapshotFilter())
       .upcasterChain(c.upcasterChain())
       .eventMessageFilter(event -> event.getPayloadType().getName().startsWith("com.acme.api"))
       .build();
}

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Dec 6, 2023 •
edited
Loading

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@smcvb smcvb added Type: Feature Use to signal an issue is completely new to the project. Priority 3: Could Low priority. Issues that are nice to have but have a straightforward workaround. Status: Under Discussion Use to signal that the issue in question is being discussed. labels Dec 12, 2023
@smcvb smcvb self-requested a review December 12, 2023 10:47
@smcvb
Copy link
Member

smcvb commented Nov 20, 2025

@bsanders1979, apologize for the radio silence here. I recall having discussed this idea internally without clear conclusion yet, and then...well I forgot about it. Sorry for that.

With that said, this PR is almost 2 years old now, and is targeted towards a minor version of Axon Framework which we will not make another patch release for.
Do you still feel strongly about this feature? If so, I would want to reevaluate the idea within the AF-team to figure if this is the way forward with the current status of AF5.

@bsanders1979
Copy link
Author

bsanders1979 commented Dec 2, 2025

Hello. Sorry, I just saw this. As it stands, adding this feature would make it easier for me to stay up to date with the framework until I can refactor the code causing the need for it. This use-case was experimental and maybe short-sighted at the time, but I think there are possibly other legitimate use-cases. When I initially implemented it, the effort was fairly minimal and seemed minimally/non invasive. I threw the question at ChatGPT and this is what it came back with. I appreciate you following up on this. Have a good day! ✌️

https://chatgpt.com/share/692f516e-5f84-8003-a42a-5d5f7735f5fb

@smcvb smcvb modified the milestones: Release 5.2.0, Release 5.3.0 Dec 3, 2025
@smcvb
Copy link
Member

smcvb commented Dec 3, 2025

Thanks for coming back to us @bsanders1979! I've scheduled it for discussion accordingly.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@smcvb smcvb Awaiting requested review from smcvb

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@bsanders1979 bsanders1979

Labels

Priority 3: Could Low priority. Issues that are nice to have but have a straightforward workaround. Status: Under Discussion Use to signal that the issue in question is being discussed. Type: Feature Use to signal an issue is completely new to the project.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

Release 5.3.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@bsanders1979 @CLAassistant @smcvb