I've joined a project that uses Jax-RS (and originally there was quite a bit of Spring-based Controller code in there too, but all URL handlers use Jax-RS now). Now we want to be able to fill in a queue of tasks that should be run with a small delay between each of them. The delay can be specified in ms. I've avoided Thread.sleep, as I've heard you should not manage threads manually in Java EE. Before I came in there was already a busy wait loop implemented.
I would like to switch this to an asynchronous background task. I could of course let the client poll the server with the given delay, and just have an AsyncResponse that can be resumed. But can the same AsyncResponse be resumed/suspended multiple times? The resource does have state, so it would be possible to drop the asynchrony completely and just do client polling to handle all of it.
A lot of example code for showing off asynchronous tasks use Thread.sleep. How bad is it to do this in a background task on an ExecutorService or something similar?
The point of the delay is to simulate human interaction, and post a long list of JMS messages to a queue but ensure that two listeners don't pick up and handle messages that depend on one another.
Is it easier/better to handle this on the client side rather than the server side? Writing some JavaScript that handles all the polling would be quite simple, so if this seems like a bad idea for handling on the server side, it's not that big a deal.
The tool is only going to be used by a single user, as it's a developer testing tool. Therefore we went for solving this on the client side, pushing the messages onto the queue through AJAX calls. This works fine for our purposes, but if anyone has a solution that might help someone else. Feel free to drop a new answer.
Related
can any one explain. when to use Synchronous and Asynchronous request with example.enter code here
Generally speaking, asynchronous requests do not block the running environment until they get a response. This keeps your UI responsive while waiting for the response, and enables your user to use it. With synchronous requests, the UI would feel like it would be frozen.
I would say that while developing a web application, you would probably use asynchronous requests 99.9% of time.
From a software engineering stand of point, synchronous code is using one process, while asynchronous code executes a concurrent process. That is exactly how your UI is enabled to be responsive. It's like as if the asynchronous code ran as another program, if you will.
Do I need to do anything to make all requests asynchronous or are they automatically handled that way?
I ran some tests and it appears that each request comes in on its own thread, but I figure better to ask as I might have tested wrong.
Update: (I have a bad habit of not explaining fully - sorry) Here's my concern. A client browser makes a REST request to my server of http://data.domain/com/employee_database/?query=state:Colorado. That comes in to the appropriate method in the controller. That method queries the database and returns an object which is then turned into a JSON structure and returned to the calling app.
Now let's say 10,000 clients all make a similar query to the same server. So I have 10,000 requests coming in at once. Will my controller method be called simultaneously in 10,000 distinct threads? Or must the first request return before the second request is called?
I'm not asking about the code in my handler method having asynchronous components. For my case the request becomes a single SQL query so the code has nothing that can be handled asynchronously. And until I get the requested data, I can't return from the method.
No REST is not async by default. the request are handled synchronously. However, your web server (IIS) has a number of max threads setting which can work at the same time, and it maintains a queue of the request received. So, the request goes in the queue and if a thread is available it gets executed else, the request waits in the IIS queue till a thread is available
I think you should be using async IO/operations such as database calls in your case. Yes in Web Api, every request has its own thread, but threads can run out if there are many consecutive requests. Also threads use memory so if your api gets hit by too many request it may put pressure on your system.
The benefit of using async over sync is that you use your system resources wisely. Instead of blocking the thread while it is waiting for the database call to complete in sync implementation, the async will free the thread to handle more requests or assign it what ever process needs a thread. Once IO (database) call completes, another thread will take it from there and continue with the implementation. Async will also make your api run faster if your IO operations take longer to complete.
To be honest, your question is not very clear. If you are making an HTTP GET using HttpClient, say the GetAsync method, request is fired and you can do whatever you want in your thread until the time you get the response back. So, this request is asynchronous. If you are asking about the server side, which handles this request (assuming it is ASP.NET Web API), then asynchronous or not is up to how you implemented your web API. If your action method, does three things, say 1, 2, and 3 one after the other synchronously in blocking mode, the same thread is going to the service the request. On the other hand, say #2 above is a call to a web service and it is an HTTP call. Now, if you use HttpClient and you make an asynchronous call, you can get into a situation where one request is serviced by more than one thread. For that to happen, you should have made the HTTP call from your action method asynchronously and used async keyword. In that case, when you call await inside the action method, your action method execution returns and the thread servicing your request is free to service some other request and ultimately when the response is available, the same or some other thread will continue from where it was left off previously. Long boring answer, perhaps but difficult to explain just through words by typing, I guess. Hope you get some clarity.
UPDATE:
Your action method will execute in parallel in 10,000 threads (ideally). Why I'm saying ideally is because a CLR thread pool having 10,000 threads is not typical and probably impractical as well. There are physical limits as well as limits imposed by the framework as well but I guess the answer to your question is that the requests will be serviced in parallel. The correct term here will be 'parallel' but not 'async'.
Whether it is sync or async is your choice. You choose by the way to write your action. If you return a Task, and also use async IO under the hood, it is async. In other cases it is synchronous.
Don't feel tempted to slap async on your action and use Task.Run. That is async-over-sync (a known anti-pattern). It must be truly async all the way down to the OS kernel.
No framework can make sync IO automatically async, so it cannot happen under the hood. Async IO is callback-based which is a severe change in programming model.
This does not answer what you should do of course. That would be a new question.
I am loading a gridview using a code based on this:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms366515%28v=VS.80%29.aspx
I am using callbacks to populate the grid, sometimes there is a lot of data or the user wants to cancel.
How can I cancel the callback from being processed on the server when user hit cancel??
thanks
Searched quite extensively and found that it is possible to Cancel Server Tasks with ASP.NET & AJAX
Although I'm not good with AJAX, Found some links that will help you,
Here's how to Canceling Server Tasks with ASP.NET & AJAX and here's a forum thread on something similar to your problem.
Hope it helped !
AFAIK, you cannot cancel the server side call back processing once initiated. At the most, you can have some client (browser) side logic that will ignore callback results.
Regardless, I will suggest you to use ASP.NET AJAX (UpdatePanel or Script Services) rather than using ICallbackEventHandler. It's quite simple to use and more flexible. Besides, you also have options such as cancelling callbacks : see this article for cancelling update panel callback (note that cancel really means stop waiting for (& ignoring) callback results, the server side processing would happen).
Once you've initiated a request to the server, the client cannot cancel it. Ignoring the mechanics around any possible "cancellable method", you've started a request with the server. Any further communication will result in a new request, so that original request will continue until it has finished. Remember HTTP is a stateless protocol, each request has no knowledge of any previous request, and because of that, how could it cancel a previous request?
You're best bet would be to just ignore the server response, or if you actually need to cancel a long running task that may still be processing on the server, you need to bake in that support yourself, as the web server will not natively support it. To do that, you'll likely need some way of persisting the task state across multiple http requests, and have the original request (the one running that task) be monitoring some sort of cancellation flag.
Just remember though, in the above scenario, you wouldn't be cancelling the request, but the task the request is running.
Problem: Some 300 candidates make a test using Flex. A test consist of some 100 exercises. After each exercise a .NET service is called to store the result. If a candidate finishes a test, all the data of his/her test is denormalized by Asp.NET. This denormalization can take some cpu and can take 5 to 10 seconds. Now, most of the times, some of the candidates have finished their test earlier than the rest, but still some 200 of them wait until their time is up. At that moment, 200 candidates finish their test and 200 sessions are denormalized at the same time. At this point, server load (cpu) is too high and cause calls to the webserver to go wrong. Now, instead of all these sessions being normalized concurrently, I would like to add them to a queue using MSMQ.
Question:
How do you process the Queue?
Do you start a separate thread in the Application_Start of global.asax that listens to the queue? If there are messages, they are dealt one at the time.
Is it necessary to do this in a separate thread? What if in the global.asax you just call a singleton for instance that starts listening to the queue? In what thread will this singleton run? (what's the thread that calls global.asax)
What are best practices to implement this? Links? Resources? Tutorials? Examples?
I don't like the idea, but could you put an exe on the root of your website, an exe that starts a process listening to the queue...
If you get a message out of the queue, do you remove it when you pull it out or do you remove it if denormalization for this session was successful? If you remove it when you pull it out and something goes wrong...
I could also create my own queue in memory, but restarting the webserver would empty the queue and a lot of sessions would end up not being normalized, so I guess this is really a bad idea.
Is MSMQ a good choice or are there better alternatives?
You could consider using a WCF-Service with MSMQ transport. I used this approach in an application that calculates commissions:
User completes asp.net wizard configuring calculation parameters
Calculation Job is sent to WCF-Service using MSMQ transport
Service transaction is completed as soon as Job entered MSMQ
New transaction scope is created for processing Job instances
One drawback is that the transaction will require MSDTC which will add some overhead when targeting MS SQL Server and even more when dealing with Oracle.
IDesign provides a lot of useful samples and best practices on WCF queueing.
Personally, I use a servicebus for scenario's like that. I know this sounds like an overkill, but I think the .net servicebusses are so good that they require the least amount of code written by you, because it's not easy to create a good scheduler for background processes without disturbing the threads of the application pool the webapp is running in. NServicebus and MassTransit are both good an well enough documented servicebuses for your scenario. With a servicebus, you have a framework that writes to msmq and listens to msmq in several apps connected by the messagequeue. The bus makes it easy for you to create a separate app that runs as a background service and is connected with your web-app by the message queue. When you use topself (included in nservicebus and masstransit), an installer/uninstaller for the seperate apps is automatically generated by the service bus.
Question: Why don't you like the idea of having a separate exe?
How do you process the Queue?
Do you start a separate thread in the Application_Start of global.asax
that listens to the queue? If there are messages, they are dealt one at
the time.
Is it necessary to do this in a separate thread? What if in the
global.asax you just call a singleton for instance that starts listening to
the queue? In what thread will this singleton run? (what's the thread that
calls global.asax)
[skip]
I don't like the idea, but could you put an exe on the root of your website, an exe that > starts a process listening to the queue...
Normally another program processes the queue - not ASP.NET. Either a windows service or an executable that you run under a scheduler (and there's no reason to put it in the root of your website).
If you get a message out of the queue, do you remove it when you pull
it out or do you remove it if denormalization for this session was
successful? If you remove it when you pull it out and something goes
wrong...
For critical work, you perform a transactional read. Items aren't removed from the queue until you commit your read operation, but while the transaction is open, no other process can get the item.
What are best practices to implement this? Links? Resources? Tutorials? Examples?
This tutorial is a good introduction and John Breakwell's blog is excellent and offers a lot of good links (including the ones in his easy-to-find sidebar "MSMQ Documentation").
I'm setting up a web service in Axis2 whose job it will be to take a bunch of XML and put it on to a queue to be processed later. I understand its possible to set up a client to invoke a synchronous web service asynchronously by creating a using an "invokeNonBlocking" operation on the "Call" instance. (ref http://onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/07/27/axis2.html?page=4)
So, my question is, is there any advantage to using an asynchronous web service in this case? It seems redundant because 1) the client isn't blocked and 2) the service has to accept and write the xml to queue regardless if it's synchronous or asynchronous
In my opinion, asynchronous is the appropriate way to go. A couple of things to consider:
Do you have multiple clients accessing this service at any given moment?
How often is this process occurring?
It does take a little more effort to implement the async methods. But I guarantee, in the end you will be much happier with the result. For one, you don't have to manage threading. Your primary concern might just be the volatility of the data in the que (i.e. race/deadlock conditions).
A "sync call" seems appropriate, I agree.
If the request from the client isn't time consuming, then I don't see the advantage either in making the call asynchronous. From what I understand of the situation in question here, the web-service will perform its "processing" against the request some time in the future.
If, on the contrary, the request had required a time consuming process, then an async call would haven been appropriate.
After ruminating some more about it, I'm thinking that the service should be asynchronous. The reason is that it would put the task of writing the data to the queue into a separate thread, thus lessening the chances of a timeout. It makes the process more complicated, but if I can avoid a timeout, then it's got to be done.