I like to resolve my Observable res$ before continue with log-ready. But I found no way, to achieve that. I can't move my last log-line into async context. Is there a way to solve that problem?
let o1 = Observable.create((o) => {
console.log('o1 start');
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(`o1 is running`);
o.next('o1');
}, 1500);
console.log('o1 ends');
});
let o2 = Observable.create((o) => {
console.log('o2 starts');
setTimeout(() => {
console.log(`o2 is running`);
o.next('o2');
}, 1100);
console.log('o2 ends');
});
let res$ = o1.pipe(concatMap(() => o2)).subscribe();
//ToDO resolve res$ before continue execution
console.log(`ready`);
https://stackblitz.com/edit/rxjs-b9z3wn?devtoolsheight=60
Is there a way to solve that problem?
In short: No, this is impossible.
JavaScript is a single-theaded language. Asynchronous code is all run on the same thread such that two parts of your JavaScript code will never run at the same time.
This has some advantages. For example, you rarely need to worry about mutex's, semaphores, etc. With JavaScript you can be certain that all synchronous code will run to completion before any other code is run.
There is a downside, however, it's not possible to lift an asynchronous context into a synchronous one. Any attempt to do so will never halt (the way a program fails when you write an infinite loop). This is why Node.js was (still is for older code) infamous for callback hell. It relies heavily on shoving callbacks onto the event loop since it is never allowed to wait. Promises and Observables are two ways to manage this complexity.
JavaScript is single threaded. So if you wait for 10 seconds, the whole program will hang for 10 seconds and do nothing. If you try to wait for something else to happen, the single thread will be busy waiting for forever and therefore be too busy to go do the thing it's waiting for.
You can convert an Observable to a Promise and await it afterwards. Try this:
await o1.pipe(concatMap(() => o2)).toPromise()
Related
I'm trying to build an NES emulator using winit, which entails building a game loop which should run exactly 60 times per second.
At first, I used std::thread to create a separate thread where the game loop would run and wait 16 milliseconds before running again. This worked quite well, until I tried to compile the program again targeting WebAssembly. I then found out that both winit::window::Window and winit::event_loop::EventLoopProxy are not Send when targeting Wasm, and that std::thread::spawn panics in Wasm.
After some struggle, I decided to try to do the same thing using task::spawn_local from one of the main asynchronous runtimes. Ultimately, I went with async_std.
I'm not used to asynchronous programming, so I'm not even sure if what I'm trying to do could work.
My idea is to do something like this:
use winit::{window::WindowBuilder, event_loop::EventLoop};
use std::time::Duration;
fn main() {
let event_loop = EventLoop::new();
let _window = WindowBuilder::new()
.build(&event_loop);
async_std::task::spawn_local(async {
// game loop goes here
loop {
// [update game state]
// [update frame buffer]
// [send render event with EventLoopProxy]
async_std::task::sleep(Duration::from_millis(16)).await;
// ^ note: I'll be using a different sleep function with Wasm
}
});
event_loop.run(move |event, _, control_flow| {
control_flow.set_wait();
match event {
// ...
_ => ()
}
});
}
The problem with this approach is that the game loop will never run. If I'm not mistaken, some asynchronous code in the main thread would need to be blocked (by calling .await) for the runtime to poll other Futures, such as the one spawned by the spawn_local function. I can't do this easily, since event_loop.run is not asynchronous.
Having time to await other events shouldn't be a problem, since the control flow is set to wait.
Testing this on native code, nothing inside the game loop ever runs. Testing this on Wasm code (with wasm_timer::Delay as the sleep function), the game loop does run, but at a very low framerate and with long intervals of halting.
Having explained my situation, I would like to ask: is it possible to do what I'm trying to do, and if it is, how would I approach it? I will also accept answers telling me how I could try to do this differently, such as by using web workers.
Thanks in advance!
I just started learning asynchronous Rust, so this is propably not a difficult question to answer, however, I am scratching my head here.
I am not trying to run tasks in parallel yet, only trying to get them to run concurrently.
According to the guide at https://rust-lang.github.io/async-book/,
The futures::join macro makes it possible to wait for multiple different futures to complete while executing them all concurrently.
So when I create 2 Futures, I should be able to "await" both of them at once. It also states that
Whereas calling a blocking function in a synchronous method would block the whole thread, blocked Futures will yield control of the thread, allowing other Futures to run.
From what I understand here, if I await multiple Futures with join!, should the first one be blocked, the second one will start running.
So I made a very simple example where I created 2 async fns and tried to join! both, making sure the first one gets blocked. I used a mpsc::channel for the blocking, since the docs stated that thread::sleep() should not be used in async fns and that recv()
will always block the current thread if there is no data available
However, the behavior is not what I expected, as calling the blocking function will not yield control of the thread, allowing the other Future to run, like I would expect from the second quote I provided. Instead, it will just wait untill it is no longer blocked, finish the first Future and only then start the second. Pretty much as if they were synchronous and I would have just called one after the other.
My complete example code:
use std::{thread::{self}, sync::{mpsc::{self, Sender, Receiver}}, time::Duration};
use futures::{executor}; //added futures = "0.3" in cargo.toml dependencies
fn main(){
let fut = main_async();
executor::block_on(fut);
}
async fn main_async(){
let (sender, receiver) = mpsc::channel();
let thread_handle = std::thread::spawn(move || { //this thread is just here so the f1 function gets blocked by something and can later resume
wait_send_function(sender);
});
let f1 = f1(receiver);
let f2 = f2();
futures::join!(f1, f2);
thread_handle.join().unwrap();
}
fn wait_send_function(sender: Sender<i32>){
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(5000));
sender.send(1234).unwrap();
}
async fn f1(receiver: Receiver<i32>){
println!("starting f1");
let new_nmbr = receiver.recv().unwrap(); //I would expect f2 to start now, since this is blocking
println!("Received nmbr is: {}", new_nmbr);
}
async fn f2(){
println!("starting f2");
}
And the output is simply:
starting f1
Received nmbr is: 1234
starting f2
My question is what am I missing here, why does f2 only start after f1 is completed and what would I need to do to get the behavior I want (completing f2 first if f1 is blocked and then waiting for f1)?
Maybe the book is a little misleading, but when it refers to "a blocked future", it does not mean in the sense of blocking synchronous code (if that was the case, there would be no problem to use std::thread::sleep()), but rather, it means that the future is waiting to be polled by the executor.
Thus, std::mpsc that blocks the thread will not have the desired effect (definitely not on a single-threaded executor like future's, but it's a bad idea on multi-threaded executors too). Use futures::channel::mpsc and everything will work.
In the example on dart.dev the Future prints the message after the main function was done.
Why might the Future work after the main function was done? At first glance, after the completion of the main function, the entire work of the program is expected to be completed (and the Future must be cancelled).
The example code:
Future<void> fetchUserOrder() {
// Imagine that this function is fetching user info from another service or database.
return Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: 2), () => print('Large Latte'));
}
void main() {
fetchUserOrder();
print('Fetching user order...');
}
The program prints
Fetching user order...
Large Latte
I've expected just the following
Fetching user order...
This has to do with the nature of futures and asynchronous programming. Behind the scenes, Dart manages something called the asynchronous queue. When you initiate a future (either manually like you did with Future.delayed or implicitly by calling a method marked async, that function's execution goes into the queue whenever its execution gets deferred. Every cycle when Dart's main thread is idle, it checks the futures in the queue to see if any of them are no longer blocked, and if so, it resumes their execution.
A Dart program will not terminate while futures are in the queue. It will wait for all of them to either complete or error out.
I'm trying to call an asynchronous method from a synchronous method like below:
1. public List<Words> Get(string code)
{
Task<List<Words>> taskWords = GetWordsAsync(code);
var result = taskWords.Result;
return result;
}
private async Task<List<Words>> GetWordsAsync(string code)
{
var result = await codeService.GetWordsByCodeAsync(code);
return result;
}
But this lead to a deadlock, await is not getting the results from the method - GetWordsByCodeAsync
I've done a bit of research and came to know that if we are calling an async method from synchronous method we should use Task.Run
When I changed the code like below, it worked:
2. public List<Words> Get(string code)
{
Task<List<Words>> taskWords = Task.Run<List<Words>>(async () => await GetWordsAsync(code);
var result = taskWords.Result;
return result;
}
private async Task<List<Words>> GetWordsAsync(string code)
{
var result = await codeService.GetWordsByCodeAsync(code);
return result;
}
But I didn't get the context, why it caused a deadlock for 1st way and 2nd one worked fine.
I'd like to know:
What's the difference between two ways?
Is second one the correct way to call async method from synchronous method?
Will using the second method also causes a deadlock at some point of time if the result is large? or is it fail proof(safe) method to use?
Also, please suggest any best practices to better do it as I have to do 5 async calls from a synchronous method - just like taskWords, I have taskSentences etc.,
Note: I don't want to change everything to async. I want to call async method from synchronous method.
I don't want to change everything to async. I want to call async method from synchronous method.
From a technical standpoint, this doesn't make sense. Asynchronous means it doesn't block the calling thread; synchronous means it does. So you understand that if you block on asynchronous code, then it's no longer truly asynchronous? The only benefit to asynchronous code is that it doesn't block the calling thread, so if you block on the asynchronous code, you're removing all the benefit of asynchrony in the first place.
The only good answer is to go async all the way. There are some rare scenarios where that's not possible, though.
What's the difference between two ways?
The first one executes the asynchronous code directly and then blocks the calling thread, waiting for it to finish. You're running into a deadlock because the asynchronous code is attempting to resume on the calling context (which await does by default), and presumably you're running this code on a UI thread or in an ASP.NET Classic request context, which only allow one thread in the context at a time. There's already a thread in the context (the one blocking, waiting for the task to finish), so the async method cannot resume and actually finish.
The second one executes the asynchronous code on a thread pool thread and then blocks the calling thread, waiting for it to finish. There is no deadlock here because the asynchronous code resumes on its calling context, which is a thread pool context, so it just continues executing on any available thread pool thread.
Is second one the correct way to call async method from synchronous method?
There is no "correct" way to do this. There are a variety of hacks, each of which has different drawbacks, and none of which work in every situation.
Will using the second method also causes a deadlock at some point of time if the result is large? or is it fail proof(safe) method to use?
It will not deadlock. What it does, though, is execute GetWordsAsync on a thread pool thread. As long as GetWordsAsync can be run on a thread pool thread, then it will work.
Also, please suggest any best practices to better do it
I have written an article on the subject. In your case, if GetWordsAsync is safe to call on a thread pool thread, then the "blocking thread pool hack" is acceptable.
Note that this is not the best solution; the best solution is to go async all the way. But the blocking thread pool hack is an acceptable hack if you must call asynchronous code from synchronous code (again, it's "acceptable" only if GetWordsAsync is safe to call on a thread pool thread).
I would recommend using GetAwaiter().GetResult() rather than Result, in order to avoid the AggregateException wrapper on error. Also, the explicit type arguments are unnecessary, and you can elide async/await in this case:
var taskWords = Task.Run(() => GetWordsAsync(code));
return taskWords.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Let's assume that you want to store events from some stream into the database and a client library to that database is asynchronous.
E.g. there is a method writeEvent(event: MyEvent): Future[Boolean] that you have to call inside onNext of your observer when the next event is emitted. Is there a good way to do this otherwise than blocking on the Future?
The only way that I currently see on how to implement this, is to create some custom Scheduler that allows me to return thread to the pool, until async code inside onNext is complete.
You do not want to block like that inside your onNext subscriber callback, that would defeat Rx. It can be chained together in a more idiomatic way.
I don't work with Futures much, but I wonder if Observable.from(Future) would work:
someStream
.flatMap(evt => Observable.from(writeEvent(evt)))
.subscribe(
next => ...,
err => ...
)