I'm writing an app using RxAndroidBle library (which is great) but due to a requirement of the Device vendor we must be able to cancel all operations after the device has reached a certain state. Is there a way of cancelling any read/write op that has been sent to the RxBleConnection?
Any ideas?
Thanks!
The library uses an internal ConnectionOperationQueue which tries to remove operations that have not yet reached execution state. A concrete implementation would vary case-to-case but using RxJava it should be fairly easy to achieve:
// First create a completable that will fulfil appropriately
Completable deviceReachedACertainState = ...;
// Then use it for every operation that you want to cancel (unsubscribe) when a certain state happens
Observable<byte[]> cancellableRead = rxBleConnection.readCharacteristic(UUID).takeUntil(deviceReachedACertainState);
Keep in mind that operations that were already taken off the queue for execution will not be cancelled.
Related
Let's say I have a stage controller and I want to write a method to move the stage. I want to be able to have the method either return after the stage has physically completed the stage move, or has started the stage move. For any kind of external control of hardware, I typically write async methods with a Task return. This way, users can await on the completion of the task, e.g. await the stage to finish it's move, or just call the move method, and await the returned task at a later point if necessary.
Is this the right approach for controller external hardware? Should these kind of methods be written synchronously with with separate methods used to determine operation completed? People I talk to seem to have an issue with using async methods; mostly because they feel it is too indeterminate for them for hardware control.
Is this the right approach for controller external hardware? Should these kind of methods be written synchronously with with separate methods used to determine operation completed?
I hesitate to use async for any kind of system that is driven by external forces. One that I've seen a lot is people try to use tasks to represent "the user pressed this button". And your example reminds me of that, but with external hardware in place of a person.
The problem with these kinds of approaches is twofold. First, it restricts you to a very linear logic flow. Second, it doesn't easily provide results other than success/fail. What if the hardware does something other than what was instructed? How easy is it to do logic that tries to do A but then times out waiting for state A' to be reached so it tries to do B?
Bear in mind that tasks must be completed. While it's possible to handle this using something like task cancellation (or hardware-specific exceptions), that can considerably complicate the logic code. Particularly when you consider timeouts, retries, and fallback logic.
So, I generally avoid using tasks for modeling that kind of domain. Something like an observable may be a better fit, or even just a Channel of state updates. Both of those permit the hardware to "push" its state and allows the logic code to respond appropriately, usually with a state machine of its own.
Given an asynchronous IMFSourceReader connected to a synchronous only IMFTransform.
Then for the IMFSourceReaderCallback::OnReadSample() callback is it a good idea not to call IMFTransform::ProcessInput directly within OnReadSample, but instead push the produced sample onto another queue for another thread to call the transforms ProcessInput on?
Or would I just be replicating identical work source readers typically do internally? Or put another way does work within OnReadSample run the risk of blocking any further decoding work within the source reader that could have otherwise happened more asynchronously?
So I am suggesting something like:
WorkQueue transformInputs;
...
// Called back async
HRESULT OnReadSampleCallback(... IMFSample* sample)
{
// Push sample and return immediately
Push(transformInputs, sample);
}
// Different worker thread awoken for transformInputs queue samples
void OnTransformInputWork()
{
// Transform object is not async capable
transform->TransformInput(0, Pop(transformInputs), 0);
...
}
This is touched on, but not elaborated on here 'Implementing the Callback Interface':
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/medfound/using-the-source-reader-in-asynchronous-mode
Or is it completely dependent on whatever the source reader sets up internally and not easily determined?
It is not a good idea to perform a long blocking operation in IMFSourceReaderCallback::OnReadSample. Nothing is going to be fatal or serious but this is not the intended usage.
Taking into consideration your previous question about audio format conversion though, audio sample data conversion is fast enough to happen on such callback.
Also, it is not clear or documented (depends on actual implementation), ProcessInput is often instant and only references input data. ProcessOutput would be computationally expensive in this case. If you don't do ProcessOutput right there in the same callback you might run into situation where MFT is no longer accepting input, and so you'd have to implement a queue anyway.
With all this in mind you would just do the processing in the callback neglecting performance impact assuming your processing is not too heavy, or otherwise you would just start doing the queue otherwise.
Currently I use the AcknoledgingMessageListener to implement a Kafka consumer using spring-Kafka. This implementation helps me listen on a specific topic and process messages with a manual ack.
I now need to build the following capability:
Let us assume that for an some environmental exception or some entry of bad data via this topic, I need to replay data on a topic from and to a specific offset. This would be a manual trigger (mostly via the execution of a Java class).
It would be ideal if I can retrieve the messages between those offsets and feed it is a replay topic so that a new consumer can process those messages thus keeping the offsets intact on the original topic.
CosumerSeekAware interface - if this is the answer how can I trigger this externally? Via let say a mvn -Dexec. I am not sure if this is even possible
Also let say that I have an crash time stamp with me, is it possible to introspect the topic to find the offset corresponding to the crash so that I can replay from that offset?
Can I find offsets corresponding to some specific data so that I can replay those specific offsets?
All of these requirements are towards building a resilience layer around our Kafka capabilities. I need all of these to be managed by a separate executable class that can be triggered manually providing the relevant data (like time stamps etc). This class should determine offsets and then seek to that offset, retrieve the messages corresponding to those offsets and post them to a separate topic. Can someone please point me in the right direction? I’m afraid I’m going around in circles.
so that a new consumer can process those messages thus keeping the offsets intact on the original topic.
Just create a new listener container with a different group id (new consumer) and use a ConsumerAwareRebalanceListener (or ConsumerSeekAware) to perform the seeks when the partitions are assigned.
Here is a sample CARL that seeks all assigned topics based on a timestamp.
You will need some mechanism to know when the new consumer should stop consuming (at which time you can stop() the new container). Maybe set max.poll.records=1 on the new consumer so he doesn't prefetch past the failure point.
I am not sure what you mean by #3.
I'll try to keep the case as general as possible here: I'm writing a C++/CX application for Windows Phone 8.1 that manages a state, which is being changed in reaction to input coming, in turns, from different sources (e.g. app UI or network). I want to utilize an approach with a program loop that will, for each source, wait for input from it and then modify the state accordingly. The problem I'm having is that I could not find a good way to mirror the behavior of the await mechanism in C++/CX. Tasks seem to be the way to handle asynchronous data processing in C++/CX, but as far as I understand they are used for waiting for results of a well-defined operation, whereas I need to wait for an asynchronous event to happen and then act appropriately depending on the type of the event.
Is there an appropriate language construct, or a way to utilize tasks, to be used in this case?
Should I make use of basic multi-threading mechanisms, like semaphores, instead?
Alternatively, should I abandon this approach and handle state changes with events, securing the state from being otherwise modified?
Thanks in advance.
I am learning about F# agents (MailboxProcessor).
I am dealing with a rather unconventional problem.
I have one agent (dataSource) which is a source of streaming data. The data has to be processed by an array of agents (dataProcessor). We can consider dataProcessor as some sort of tracking device.
Data may flow in faster than the speed with which the dataProcessor may be able to process its input.
It is OK to have some delay. However, I have to ensure that the agent stays on top of its work and does not get piled under obsolete observations
I am exploring ways to deal with this problem.
The first idea is to implement a stack (LIFO) in dataSource. dataSource would send over the latest observation available when dataProcessor becomes available to receive and process the data. This solution may work but it may get complicated as dataProcessor may need to be blocked and re-activated; and communicate its status to dataSource, leading to a two way communication problem. This problem may boil down to a blocking queue in the consumer-producer problem but I am not sure..
The second idea is to have dataProcessor taking care of message sorting. In this architecture, dataSource will simply post updates in dataProcessor's queue. dataProcessor will use Scanto fetch the latest data available in his queue. This may be the way to go. However, I am not sure if in the current design of MailboxProcessorit is possible to clear a queue of messages, deleting the older obsolete ones. Furthermore, here, it is written that:
Unfortunately, the TryScan function in the current version of F# is
broken in two ways. Firstly, the whole point is to specify a timeout
but the implementation does not actually honor it. Specifically,
irrelevant messages reset the timer. Secondly, as with the other Scan
function, the message queue is examined under a lock that prevents any
other threads from posting for the duration of the scan, which can be
an arbitrarily long time. Consequently, the TryScan function itself
tends to lock-up concurrent systems and can even introduce deadlocks
because the caller's code is evaluated inside the lock (e.g. posting
from the function argument to Scan or TryScan can deadlock the agent
when the code under the lock blocks waiting to acquire the lock it is
already under).
Having the latest observation bounced back may be a problem.
The author of this post, #Jon Harrop, suggests that
I managed to architect around it and the resulting architecture was actually better. In essence, I eagerly Receive all messages and filter using my own local queue.
This idea is surely worth exploring but, before starting to play around with code, I would welcome some inputs on how I could structure my solution.
Thank you.
Sounds like you might need a destructive scan version of the mailbox processor, I implemented this with TPL Dataflow in a blog series that you might be interested in.
My blog is currently down for maintenance but I can point you to the posts in markdown format.
Part1
Part2
Part3
You can also check out the code on github
I also wrote about the issues with scan in my lurking horror post
Hope that helps...
tl;dr I would try this: take Mailbox implementation from FSharp.Actor or Zach Bray's blog post, replace ConcurrentQueue by ConcurrentStack (plus add some bounded capacity logic) and use this changed agent as a dispatcher to pass messages from dataSource to an army of dataProcessors implemented as ordinary MBPs or Actors.
tl;dr2 If workers are a scarce and slow resource and we need to process a message that is the latest at the moment when a worker is ready, then it all boils down to an agent with a stack instead of a queue (with some bounded capacity logic) plus a BlockingQueue of workers. Dispatcher dequeues a ready worker, then pops a message from the stack and sends this message to the worker. After the job is done the worker enqueues itself to the queue when becomes ready (e.g. before let! msg = inbox.Receive()). Dispatcher consumer thread then blocks until any worker is ready, while producer thread keeps the bounded stack updated. (bounded stack could be done with an array + offset + size inside a lock, below is too complex one)
Details
MailBoxProcessor is designed to have only one consumer. This is even commented in the source code of MBP here (search for the word 'DRAGONS' :) )
If you post your data to MBP then only one thread could take it from internal queue or stack.
In you particular use case I would use ConcurrentStack directly or better wrapped into BlockingCollection:
It will allow many concurrent consumers
It is very fast and thread safe
BlockingCollection has BoundedCapacity property that allows you to limit the size of a collection. It throws on Add, but you could catch it or use TryAdd. If A is a main stack and B is a standby, then TryAdd to A, on false Add to B and swap the two with Interlocked.Exchange, then process needed messages in A, clear it, make a new standby - or use three stacks if processing A could be longer than B could become full again; in this way you do not block and do not lose any messages, but could discard unneeded ones is a controlled way.
BlockingCollection has methods like AddToAny/TakeFromAny, which work on an arrays of BlockingCollections. This could help, e.g.:
dataSource produces messages to a BlockingCollection with ConcurrentStack implementation (BCCS)
another thread consumes messages from BCCS and sends them to an array of processing BCCSs. You said that there is a lot of data. You may sacrifice one thread to be blocking and dispatching your messages indefinitely
each processing agent has its own BCCS or implemented as an Agent/Actor/MBP to which the dispatcher posts messages. In your case you need to send a message to only one processorAgent, so you may store processing agents in a circular buffer to always dispatch a message to least recently used processor.
Something like this:
(data stream produces 'T)
|
[dispatcher's BCSC]
|
(a dispatcher thread consumes 'T and pushes to processors, manages capacity of BCCS and LRU queue)
| |
[processor1's BCCS/Actor/MBP] ... [processorN's BCCS/Actor/MBP]
| |
(process) (process)
Instead of ConcurrentStack, you may want to read about heap data structure. If you need your latest messages by some property of messages, e.g. timestamp, rather than by the order in which they arrive to the stack (e.g. if there could be delays in transit and arrival order <> creation order), you can get the latest message by using heap.
If you still need Agents semantics/API, you could read several sources in addition to Dave's links, and somehow adopt implementation to multiple concurrent consumers:
An interesting article by Zach Bray on efficient Actors implementation. There you do need to replace (under the comment // Might want to schedule this call on another thread.) the line execute true by a line async { execute true } |> Async.Start or similar, because otherwise producing thread will be consuming thread - not good for a single fast producer. However, for a dispatcher like described above this is exactly what needed.
FSharp.Actor (aka Fakka) development branch and FSharp MPB source code (first link above) here could be very useful for implementation details. FSharp.Actors library has been in a freeze for several months but there is some activity in dev branch.
Should not miss discussion about Fakka in Google Groups in this context.
I have a somewhat similar use case and for the last two days I have researched everything I could find on the F# Agents/Actors. This answer is a kind of TODO for myself to try these ideas, of which half were born during writing it.
The simplest solution is to greedily eat all messages in the inbox when one arrives and discard all but the most recent. Easily done using TryReceive:
let rec readLatestLoop oldMsg =
async { let! newMsg = inbox.TryReceive 0
match newMsg with
| None -> oldMsg
| Some newMsg -> return! readLatestLoop newMsg }
let readLatest() =
async { let! msg = inbox.Receive()
return! readLatestLoop msg }
When faced with the same problem I architected a more sophisticated and efficient solution I called cancellable streaming and described in in an F# Journal article here. The idea is to start processing messages and then cancel that processing if they are superceded. This significantly improves concurrency if significant processing is being done.