Good day!
Wondering if using fireUserEventTriggered/userEventTriggered is netty way to collaborate with callback-oriented external services while processing message in channel handlers?
I mean, if there is some "alien" service with nonblocking(callback mechanic) methods, is this is right way to call ChannelHandlerContext#fireUserEventTriggered(passing some params from callback closure) and then handle it within overloaded ChannelInboundHandler#userEventTriggered for continue communication within original channel where it all started.
Example for illustration
#Override
public void channelRead(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Object msg) {
externalServiceWithAsyncApi.doAndRegisterCallback(
//some call that will finish later and trigger callback handler
(callbackParam)->
ctx.fireUserEventTriggered(
new ExternalServiceCallbackEvent(callbackParam)
)
);
}
#Override
public void userEventTriggered(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Object evt) throws Exception {
//seems its for us to handle
if (evt instanceof ExternalServiceCallbackEvent) {
//some processing and answer in the original?
ctx.channel()
.writeAndFlush(...)
.addListener(...);
// let other handlers process
} else {
super.userEventTriggered(ctx, evt);
}
}
Seems example with HeartbeatHandler in "Netty in Action" (in Listing 11.7) is relevant, but this part is a bit ahead from my current point of reading, so decided to ask for a help.
There is very similar question but something did not work for author and no answer Netty, writing to channel from non-Netty thread
UPD
The correct way seems to call NOT
ctx.fireUserEventTriggered(...)
but
ctx.channel().pipeline().fireUserEventTriggered(...)
It's definitely something you could used for that. That said you can also just do the write directly from your callback.
Related
We are using premium SDK and OnTapEvent callback of OnGestureListenerAdapter interface is invoked on background thread. Is it intended behaviour or bug in SDK?
Tried to find answer in docs but there is no info about this behaviour.
val state = MutableLiveData<MapViewState>()
override fun onTapEvent(point: PointF): Boolean {
viewModel.onMapClick()
return false
}
fun onMapClick() {
state.setValue(state.copy(selected = None))
}
Getting error when trying to set value to LiveData directly from onTapEvent.
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Cannot invoke setValue on a background thread
at androidx.lifecycle.LiveData.assertMainThread(LiveData.java:443)
at androidx.lifecycle.LiveData.setValue(LiveData.java:286)
at androidx.lifecycle.MutableLiveData.setValue(MutableLiveData.java:33)
at com.example.MapFragment.onTapEvent(MapFragment.kt:121)
at com.nokia.maps.MapGestureHandlerBase.a(MapGestureHandlerBase.java:253)
at com.nokia.maps.MapGestureHandlerBase.a(MapGestureHandlerBase.java:230)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler.handleTap(NmaaGestureHandler.java:230)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler.pollNative(Native Method)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler.a(NmaaGestureHandler.java:26)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler$a.d(NmaaGestureHandler.java:379)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler$a.c(NmaaGestureHandler.java:371)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler$a.a(NmaaGestureHandler.java:363)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler$a$1.a(NmaaGestureHandler.java:390)
at com.nokia.maps.NmaaGestureHandler$b.run(NmaaGestureHandler.java:429)
Seems logic to have this callback invoked on main thread.
Quick answer is: to avoid ANR. SDK user can write heavy code and that will cause application not responding issue.
There are two ways to solve the issue:
1) Post your actions to UI thread like below:
new Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).post(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// customer code
}
});
2) Use asynchronous listeners, which are called on UI thread. You have to register your gesture listener using "false" value as third param:
m_mapGesture.addOnGestureListener(gestureListener, 0, false);
Hope this helps!
I want some kind of mechanism to have more information about a caught exception. (Specifically exceptions I throw myself to abort transactions) I've looked around and pretty much the only thing I could find was "Use the info log". This to me does not seem like a good idea. For one it is cumbersome to access and find the last message. And it is limited in size so at some point the new messages won't even show up.
So my idea is the following: Create a class NuException and pass an instance of that through all methods store an instance in the class where the work methods are located. When I need to throw an exception I call a method on it similar to Global::error() but this one takes an identifier and a message.
Once I reach my catch block I can access those from my object the class that contains the work methods similarly to how CLRExceptions work.
class NuException
{
"public" str identifier;
"public" str message;
public Exception error(str _id, str _msg)
{
//set fields
return Exception::Error;
}
}
class Worker
{
"public" NuException exception;
void foo()
{
throw this.exception.error("Foo", "Record Foo already exists");
}
void bar()
{
this.foo();
}
}
void Job()
{
Worker w = new Worker();
try
{
w.bar(ex);
}
catch (Exception::Error)
{
info(w.exception().message());
}
}
It works but isn't there a better way? Surely someone must have come up with a solution to work around this shortcoming in AX?
Short answer: yes.
While your "brilliant" scheme "works", it gets boring pretty fast, as you now must transport your NuException object deep down 20 level from the listener (job) to the thrower (foo). Your bar method and other middle men has no interest or knowledge about your exception scheme but must pass it on anyway.
This is no longer the case after the update.
There are several ways to go.
Use an observer pattern like the Event broker or in AX 2012 and newer use delegates.
Stick to the infolog system and you use an InfoAction class to peggy bag your information to be used later. It can be used to display a stack trace or other interesting information.
Use a dedicated table for logging.
The third way may seem impractical, as any errors will undo the insert in the log. This is the default behavior but can be circumvented.
MyLogTable log;
Connection con = new UserConnection();
con.ttsBegin();
log.setConnection(con);
... // Set your fields
log.insert();
con.ttsCommit();
Your way to go depends on circumstances you do not mention.
We are evaluating Grid Gain 6.5.5 at the moment as a potential solution for distribution of compute jobs over a grid.
The problem we are facing at the moment is a lack of a suitable asynchronous notification mechanism that will notify the sender asynchronously upon job completion (or future completion).
The prototype architecture is relatively simple and the core issue is presented in the pseudo code below (the full code cannot be published due to an NDA). *** Important - the code represents only the "problem", the possible solution in question is described in the text at the bottom together with the question.
//will be used as an entry point to the grid for each client that will submit jobs to the grid
public class GridClient{
//client node for submission that will be reused
private static Grid gNode = GridGain.start("config xml file goes here");
//provides the functionality of submitting multiple jobs to the grid for calculation
public int sendJobs2Grid(GridJob[] jobs){
Collection<GridCallable<GridJobOutput>> calls = new ArrayList<>();
for (final GridJob job : jobs) {
calls.add(new GridCallable<GridJobOutput>() {
#Override public GridJobOutput call() throws Exception {
GridJobOutput result = job.process();
return result;
}
});
}
GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>> fut = this.gNode.compute().call(calls);
fut.listenAsync(new GridInClosure<GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>>>(){
#Override public void apply(GridFuture<Collection<GridJobOutput>> jobsOutputCollection) {
Collection<GridJobOutput> jobsOutput;
try {
jobsOutput = jobsOutputCollection.get();
for(GridJobOutput currResult: jobsOutput){
//do something with the current job output BUT CANNOT call jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) method
//of sendJobs2Grid class here
}
} catch (GridException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
return calls.size();
}
//This function should be invoked asynchronously when the GridFuture is
//will invoke some processing/aggregation of the result for each submitted job
public void jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) {}
}
}
//represents a job type that is to be submitted to the grid
public class GridJob{
public GridJobOutput process(){}
}
Description:
The idea is that a GridClient instance will be used to in order to submit a list/array of jobs to the grid, notify the sender how many jobs were submitted and when the jobs are finished (asynchronously) is will perform some processing of the results. For the results processing part the "GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out)" method should be invoked.
Now getting to question at hand, we are aware of the GridInClosure interface that can be used with "GridFuture.listenAsync(GridInClosure> lsnr)"
in order to register a future listener.
The problem (if my understanding is correct) is that it is a good and pretty straightforward solution in case the result of the future is to be "processed" by code that is within the scope of the given GridInClosure. In our case we need to use the "GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out)" which is out of the scope.
Due to the fact that GridInClosure has a single argument R and it has to be of the same type as of GridFuture result it seems impossible to use this approach in a straightforward manner.
If I got it right till now then in order to use "GridFuture.listenAsync(..)" aproach the following has to be done:
GridClient will have to implement an interface granting access to the "jobFinished(..)" method let's name it GridJobFinishedListener.
GridJob will have to be "wrapped" in new class in order to have an additional property of GridJobFinishedListener type.
GridJobOutput will have to be "wrapped" in new class in order to have an addtional property of GridJobFinishedListener type.
When the GridJob will be done in addition to the "standard" result GridJobOutput will contain the corresponding GridJobFinishedListener reference.
Given the above modifications now GridInClosure can be used now and in the apply(GridJobOutput) method it will be possible to call the GridClient.jobFinished(GridJobOutput out) method through the GridJobFinishedListener interface.
So if till now I got it all right it seems a bit clumsy work around so I hope I have missed something and there is a much better way to handle this relatively simple case of asynchronous call back.
Looking forward to any helpful feedback, thanks a lot in advance.
Your code looks correct and I don't see any problems in calling jobFinished method from the future listener closure. You declared it as an anonymous class which always has a reference to the external class (GridClient in your case), therefore you have access to all variables and methods of GridClient instance.
I'm using Play framework 2.2 for one of my upcoming web application. I have implemented my controllers in synchronous pattern, with several blocking calls (mainly, database).
For example,
Synchronous version:
public static Result index(){
User user = db.getUser(email); // blocking
User anotherUser = db.getUser(emailTwo); // blocking
...
user.sendEmail(); // call to a webservice, blocking.
return ok();
}
So, while optimising the code, decided to make use of Asynchronous programming support of Play. Gone through the documentation, but the idea is still vague to me, as I'm confused about how to properly convert the above synchronous block of code to Async.
So, I came up with below code:
Asynchronous version:
public static Promise<Result> index(){
return Promise.promise(
new Function0<Result>(){
public Result apply(){
User user = db.getUser(email); // blocking
User anotherUser = db.getUser(emailTwo); // blocking
...
user.sendEmail(); // call to a webservice, blocking.
return ok();
}
}
);
}
So, I just wrapped the entire control logic inside a promise block.
Is my approach correct?
Should I convert each and every blocking request inside the controller, as Asynchronous, or wrapping several blocking calls inside single Async block is enough?
The play framework is asynchronous by nature and it allows the creation of fully non-blocking code. But in order to be non-blocking - with all its benefits - you can't just wrap your blocking code and expect magic to happen...
In an ideal scenario, your complete application is written in a non-blocking manner. If this is not possible (for whatever reason), you might want to abstract your blocking code in Akka actors or behind async interfaces which return scala.concurrent.Future's. This way you can execute your blocking code (simultaneously) in a dedicated Execution Context, without impacting other actions. After all, having all your actions share the same ExecutionContext means they share the same Thread pool. So an Action that blocks Threads might drastically impact other Actions doing pure CPU while having CPU not fully utilized!
In your case, you probably want to start at the lowest level. It looks like the database calls are blocking so start by refactoring these first. You either need to find an asynchronous driver for whatever database you are using or if there is only a blocking driver available, you should wrap them in a future to execute using a DB-specific execution context (with a ThreadPool that's the same size as the DB ConnectionPool).
Another advantage of abstracting the DB calls behind an async interface is that, if at some point in the future, you switch to a non-blocking driver, you can just change the implementation of your interface without having to change your controllers!
In your re-active controller, you can then handle these futures and work with them (when they complete). You can find more about working with Futures here
Here's a simplified example of your controller method doing non-blocking calls, and then combining the results in your view, while sending an email asynchronous:
public static Promise<Result> index(){
scala.concurrent.Future<User> user = db.getUser(email); // non-blocking
scala.concurrent.Future<User> anotherUser = db.getUser(emailTwo); // non-blocking
List<scala.concurrent.Future<User>> listOfUserFutures = new ArrayList<>();
listOfUserFutures.add(user);
listOfUserFutures.add(anotherUser);
final ExecutionContext dbExecutionContext = Akka.system().dispatchers().lookup("dbExecutionContext");
scala.concurrent.Future<Iterable<User>> futureListOfUsers = akka.dispatch.Futures.sequence(listOfUserFutures, dbExecutionContext);
final ExecutionContext mailExecutionContext = Akka.system().dispatchers().lookup("mailExecutionContext");
user.andThen(new OnComplete<User>() {
public void onComplete(Throwable failure, User user) {
user.sendEmail(); // call to a webservice, non-blocking.
}
}, mailExecutionContext);
return Promise.wrap(futureListOfUsers.flatMap(new Mapper<Iterable<User>, Future<Result>>() {
public Future<Result> apply(final Iterable<User> users) {
return Futures.future(new Callable<Result>() {
public Result call() {
return ok(...);
}
}, Akka.system().dispatcher());
}
}, ec));
}
It you don't have anything to not block on then there may not be a reason to make your controller async. Here is a good blog about this from one of the creators of Play: http://sadache.tumblr.com/post/42351000773/async-reactive-nonblocking-threads-futures-executioncont
I am working on a Windows Store (C++) app. This is a method that reads from the database using the web service.
task<std::wstring> Ternet::GetFromDB(cancellation_token cancellationToken)
{
uriString = ref new String(L"http://myHost:1234/RestServiceImpl.svc/attempt");
auto uri = ref new Windows::Foundation::Uri(Helpers::Trim(uriString));
cancellationTokenSource = cancellation_token_source();
return httpRequest.GetAsync(uri, cancellationTokenSource.get_token()).then([this](task<std::wstring> response)->std::wstring
{
try
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg(ref new String(response.get().c_str()), "success");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
return response.get();
}
catch (const task_canceled&)
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg("Couldn't load content. Check internet connectivity.", "Error");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
std::wstring abc;
return abc;
}
catch (Exception^ ex)
{
Windows::UI::Popups::MessageDialog wMsg("Couldn't load content. Check internet connectivity.", "Error");
wMsg.ShowAsync();
std::wstring abc;
return abc;
}
} , task_continuation_context::use_current());
}
I'm confused how to return the received data to the calling function. Now, I am calling this function in the constructor of my data class like this:
ternet.GetFromDB(cancellationTokenSource.get_token()).then([this](task<std::wstring> response)
{
data = ref new String(response.get().c_str());
});
I am getting a COM exception whenever I try to receive the returned data from GetFromDB(). But this one runs fine:
ternet.GetFromDB(cancellationTokenSource.get_token());
Please suggest a better way of chaining the completion of GetFromDB to other code. And how to get the returned value from inside the try{} block of GetFromDB() 's then. Please keep in mind I am a very new student of async programming.
If the continuation of the call to GetFromDB is happening on the UI thread (which I believe it will by default, assuming the call site you pasted is occurring in the UI thread), then calling get() on the returned task will throw an exception. It won't let you block the UI thread waiting for a task to finish.
Two suggestions, either of which should fix that problem. The first should work regardless, while the second is only a good option if you're not trying to get the response string to the UI thread (to be displayed, for example).
1) Write your continuations (lambdas that you pass to then) so that they take the actual result of the previous task, rather than the previous task itself. In other words, instead of writing this:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](task<std::wstring> response) { ... });
write this:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](std::wstring response) { ... });
The difference with the latter is that the continuation machinery will call get() for you (on a background thread) and then give the result to your continuation function, which is a lot easier all around. You only need to have your continuation take the actual task as an argument if you want to catch exceptions that might have been thrown by the task as it executed.
2) Tell it to run your continuation on a background/arbitrary thread:
ternet.GetFromDB(...).then([this](task<std::wstring> response) { ... }, task_continuation_context::use_arbitrary());
It won't care if you block a background thread, it only cares if you call get() on the UI thread.