Processing SOAP messages with Akka - http

I'm in the process of building a small tool for my employer, and attempting to implement it using Akka 2 + Scala.
One of the systems I'm interfacing with has a a SOAP api, which has an interesting implementation:
----Request-------
Client ----Request----> Server
Client <---Req Ack----- Server
----Response------
Client <---Response---- Server
Client ----Resp Ack---->Server
Keeping track of the requests is done via a task id sent by the req-ack.
My question is to the SO community and anyone who has experience with akka are the following:
What would be an ideal way to handle http messages using akka for this particular scenario? I have seen examples with Akka-Mist, which looks like it's been discontinued in favor of play-mini, then there's akka-camel, which I can't seem to be able to find the library for as part of the akka 2.0.3 distribution, so I'm a little confused as to what approach I should take. Is there a recommended way to wrap a encapsulate a servlet's behavior inside an akka actor?
Thank you all in advance.

Your question is VERY open ended so I will make some assumptions about your requirements.
Request assumption: There are a lot of requests being generated upon some event.
Create a router having actors that wrap the async-http-client (https://github.com/sonatype/async-http-client). Once the async-http-client completes a request it would send a message having the ID contained in the Req Ack to a coordination actor. The coordination actor would aggregate the ID's.
The following is largely pseudocode but it's close enough to the real API that you should be able to figure out the missing pieces.
case class Request(url:String)
case class IDReceived(id:String)
case class RequestingActor extends Actor {
override def receive = {
case Request(url) => {
//set up the async client and run the request
//since it's async the client will not block and this actor can continue making generating more requests
}
}
}
class AsyncHttpClientResponseHandler(aggregationActor:ActorRef) extends SomeAsyncClientHandler {
//Override the necessary Handler methods.
override def onComplete = {
aggregationActor ! IDReceived(//get the id from the response)
}
}
class SomeEventHandlerClass {
val requestRouter = actorSystem.actorOf(Props[RequestingActor].withRouter(FromConfig(//maybe you've configured a round-robin router)), requestRouterName)
def onEvent(url:String) {
requestRouter ! Request(url)
}
}
case class AggregationActor extends Actor {
val idStorage = //some form of storage, maybe a Map if other information about the task ID needs to be stored as well. Map(id -> other information)
override def receive = {
case IDReceived(id) => //add the ID to idStorage
}
}
Response assumption: You need to do something with the data contained in the response and then mark the ID as complete. The HTTP frontend only needs to deal with this one set of messages.
Instead of trying to find a framework with Akka integration just use a simple HTTP frontend that will send messages into the Akka network you've created. I can't imagine any advantage gained by using play-mini and I think it would obscure some of the lines delineating work separation and control. That's not always the case but given the lack of requirements in your question I have nothing else to base my opinion on.
case class ResponseHandlingActor extends Actor {
val aggregationActor = actorSystem.actorFor(//the name of the aggregation router within the Actor System)
override def receive = {
case Response(data) => {
//do something with the data. If the data manipulation is blocking or long running it may warrant its own network of actors.
aggregationActor ! ResponseReceived(//get the id from the response)
}
}
}
class ScalatraFrontEnd() extends ScalatraServlet {
val responseRouter = actorSystem.actorOf(Props[RequestingActor].withRouter(FromConfig(//maybe you've configured a round-robin router)), requestRouterName)
post("/response") {
responseRouter ! Response(//data from the response)
}
}
Creating a system similar to this gives you nice separation of concerns, makes it really easy to reason about where processing takes place and plenty of room for scaling the system or extending it.

Related

Redux Offline debounce server requests

I'm trying to work out the best way to get Redux Offline to debounce server requests.
Currently when the server is busy, it saves them up in a queue and sends all of them. I'd like it just to save the last one but use the same Save action to update the redux store.
My code in the action is:
export class SaveSession extends OfflineAction<SessionTypes> {
public readonly type = SessionTypes.SAVE_SESSION;
constructor(public session: ISession) {
super();
this.meta = {
offline: {
effect: {
url: `${process.env.REACT_APP_API}/api/session/save`,
body: JSON.stringify(session),
method: 'POST',
headers: authHeader()
},
commit: new SaveSessionSuccess(),
rollback: new SaveSessionError()
}
};
}
}
I'm looking through the documentation but I can't see anything around debouncing server requests.
Is this possible?
Have a look at this link from the documentation.
It seems like you will be interested in overriding the enqueue function to adjust the logic to suit your need: some kind of smart queue.
They said they've come up with smart-queue to serve this purpose: check this. Check it out and roll out the mechanism to match your requirement.

How to add multiple Bindable services to a grpc server builder?

I have the gRPC server code as below:
public void buildServer() {
List<BindableService> theServiceList = new ArrayList<BindableService>();
theServiceList.add(new CreateModuleContentService());
theServiceList.add(new RemoveModuleContentService());
ServerBuilder<?> sb = ServerBuilder.forPort(m_port);
for (BindableService aService : theServiceList) {
sb.addService(aService);
}
m_server = sb.build();
}
and client code as below:
public class JavaMainClass {
public static void main(String[] args) {
CreateModuleService createModuleService = new CreateModuleService();
ESDStandardResponse esdReponse = createModuleService.createAtomicBlock("8601934885970354030", "atm1");
RemoveModuleService moduleService = new RemoveModuleService();
moduleService.removeAtomicBlock("8601934885970354030", esdReponse.getId());
}
}
While I am running the client I am getting an exception as below:
Exception in thread "main" io.grpc.StatusRuntimeException: UNIMPLEMENTED: Method grpc.blocks.operations.ModuleContentServices/createAtomicBlock is unimplemented
at io.grpc.stub.ClientCalls.toStatusRuntimeException(ClientCalls.java:233)
at io.grpc.stub.ClientCalls.getUnchecked(ClientCalls.java:214)
at io.grpc.stub.ClientCalls.blockingUnaryCall(ClientCalls.java:139)
In the above server class, if I am commenting the line theServiceList.add(new RemoveModuleContentService()); then the CreateModuleContentService service is working fine, also without commenting all the services of RemoveModuleContentService class are working as expected, which means the problem is with the first service when another gets added.
Can someone please suggest how can I add two services to Server Builder.
A particular gRPC service can only be implemented once per server. Since the name of the gRPC service in the error message is ModuleContentServices, I'm assuming CreateModuleContentService and RemoveModuleContentService both extend ModuleContentServicesImplBase.
When you add the same service multiple times, the last one wins. The way the generated code works, every method of a service is registered even if you don't implement that particular method. Every service method defaults to a handler that simply returns "UNIMPLEMENTED: Method X is unimplemented". createAtomicBlock isn't implemented in RemoveModuleContentService, so it returns that error.
If you interact with the ServerServiceDefinition returned by bindService(), you can mix-and-match methods a bit more, but this is a more advanced API and is intended more for frameworks to use because it can become verbose to compose every application service individually.

Spring Contracts generated from Spring RestDocs: ignoring headers

TL;DR: I commented on this issue and got asked to open a new ticket, but then realized this is more of a question as Spring RestDocs provides a way to achieve what I want (ignoring unimportant headers in contracts) with operation preprocessor. So here we are, on our friendly SoF
The problem is I am trying to generate contracts starting from a RestDocs test (using RestAssured and junit5 if it matters). Test setup (in Kotlin) looks like:
private val defaultDocument = document("{method_name}", SpringCloudContractRestDocs.dslContract())
lateinit var spec: RequestSpecification
#BeforeEach
internal fun setUp(restDocumentationContextProvider: RestDocumentationContextProvider) {
RestAssured.port = port
spec = RequestSpecBuilder()
.setConfig(
RestAssuredConfig.config()
.objectMapperConfig(
ObjectMapperConfig.objectMapperConfig()
.jackson2ObjectMapperFactory { _, _ -> mapper }
)
)
.addFilter(defaultDocument)
.addFilter(ResponseLoggingFilter())
.log(LogDetail.ALL)
.build()
}
where mapper and port are injected as Spring beans.
The server generates a Date header, which is the time when the response is generated. This is done automatically by Spring WebMvc (I think) and I don't care at all for that header. However, the Date header causes stub generation to fail, as I decided to use Spring Cloud Contracts in a polyglot world approach to generate and upload stub to maven repository, because now the server generates a different date.
As I point out here, the ContractDslSnippet does not seem to provide a way to ignore unimportant headers and/or to add matchers (which would still an open question).
The (short) list of questions:
How can I filter out unimportant headers from generated contracts?
Can I add custom matchers for headers, like I can do for body?
How to remove unimportant header, using Spring RestDocs preprocessors:
private val defaultDocument = document("{method_name}", SpringCloudContractRestDocs.dslContract())
lateinit var spec: RequestSpecification
#BeforeEach
internal fun setUp(restDocumentationContextProvider: RestDocumentationContextProvider) {
RestAssured.port = port
spec = RequestSpecBuilder()
.setConfig(
RestAssuredConfig.config()
.objectMapperConfig(
ObjectMapperConfig.objectMapperConfig()
.jackson2ObjectMapperFactory { _, _ -> mapper }
)
)
.addFilter(
documentationConfiguration(restDocumentationContextProvider)
.operationPreprocessors()
.withResponseDefaults(Preprocessors.removeMatchingHeaders("Date"))
)
.addFilter(defaultDocument)
.addFilter(ResponseLoggingFilter())
.log(LogDetail.ALL)
.build()
}
The important part is adding a new filter (the first one), which takes care of configuring Spring RestDocs to remove the Date from all its snippets, including the contract ones.
How to add custom matchers, using the default SpringCloudContractRestDocs.dslContract(): I don't think it is actually possible right now, but might be wrong here (glad if somebody can chime in and correct me in case)

Is it a bad idea to use synchronous filesystem methods in a Dart web server?

I'm playing around with HttpServer; and was adding support for serving static files (I'm aware of Shelf; I'm doing this as a learning exercise). I have a list of handlers that are given the opportunity to handle the request in sequence (stopping at the first that handles it):
const handlers = const [
handleStaticRequest
];
handleRequest(HttpRequest request) {
// Run through all handlers; and if none handle the request, 404
if (!handlers.any((h) => h(request))) {
request.response.statusCode = HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND;
request.response.headers.contentType = new ContentType("text", "html");
request.response.write('<h1>404 File Not Found</h1>');
request.response.close();
}
}
However, as I implemented the static file handler, I realised that I couldn't return true/false directly (which is required by the handleRequest code above, to signal if the request is handled) unless I use file.existsSync().
In something like ASP.NET, I wouldn't think twice about a blocking call in a request because it's threaded; however in Dart, it seems like it would be a bottleneck if every request is blocking every other request for the duration of IO hits like this.
So, I decided to have a look in Shelf, to see how that handled this; but disappointingly, that appears to do the same (in fact, it does several synchronous filesystem hits).
Am I overestimating the impact of this; or is this a bad idea for a Dart web service? I'm not writing Facebook; but I'd still like to learn to write things in the most efficient way.
If this is considered bad; is there a built-in way of doing "execute these futures sequentially until the first one returns a match for this condition"? I can see Future.forEach but that doesn't have the ability to bail. I guess "Future.any" is probably what it'd be called if it existed (but that doesn't)?
Using Shelf is the right approach here.
But there is still a trade-off between sync and async within the static handler package.
Blocking on I/O obviously limits concurrency, but there is a non-zero cost to injecting Future into a code path.
I will dig in a bit to get a better answer here.
After doing some investigation, it does not seem that adding async I/O in the shelf_static improves performance except for the bit that's already async: reading file contents.
return new Response.ok(file.openRead(), headers: headers);
The actual reading of file contents is done by passing a Stream to the response. This ensures that the bulk of the slow I/O happens in a non-blocking way. This is key.
In the mean time, you may want to look at Future.forEach for an easy way to invoke an arbitrary number of async methods.
There are a lot of good questions in your post (perhaps we should split them out into individual SO questions?).
To answer the post title's question, the best practice for servers is to use the async methods.
For command-line utilities and simple scripts, the sync methods are perfectly fine.
I think it becomes a problem if you do file access that is blocking for a long time (reading/writing/searching big files locally or over the network).
I can't imagine file.existsSync() doing much damage. If you are already in async code it's easy to stay async but if you have to go async just for the sake of not using file.existsSync() I would consider this premature optimization.
A little offtopick, but it solved my problem, I was trying to solve by reading discussion on this question. I was not able to achieve async operation in handler with io.serve, so I used dart:io for active pages and shelf.handleReguest for static files:
import 'dart:io';
import 'dart:async' show runZoned;
import 'package:path/path.dart' show join, dirname;
import 'package:shelf/shelf_io.dart' as io;
import 'package:shelf_static/shelf_static.dart';
import 'dart:async';
import 'package:sqljocky/sqljocky.dart';
void main(){
HttpServer
.bind(InternetAddress.ANY_IP_V4, 9999)
.then((server) {
server.listen((HttpRequest request) {
String path = request.requestedUri.path;
if(path == "/db"){
var pool = new ConnectionPool(host: 'localhost', port: 3306, user: 'root', db: 'db', max: 5);
var result = pool.query("select * from myTable");
result.then((Results data) {
data.first.then((Row row) {
request.response.write(row.toString());
request.response.close();
});
});
}else{
String pathToBuild = join(dirname(Platform.script.toFilePath()), '..', 'build/web');
var handler = createStaticHandler(pathToBuild, defaultDocument: 'index.html');
io.handleRequest(request, handler);
}
});
});
}
Many months later I've found how to create that Stream... (still offtopick .. a little)
shelf.Response _echoRequest(shelf.Request request) {
StreamController controller = new StreamController();
Stream<List<int>> out = controller.stream;
new Future.delayed(const Duration(seconds:1)).then((_){
controller.add(const Utf8Codec().encode("hello"));
controller.close();
});
return new shelf.Response.ok(out);
}

WCF Client Proxies, Client/Channel Caching in ASP.Net - Code Review

long time ASP.Net interface developer being asked to learn WCF, looking for some education on more architecture related fronts - as its not my strong suit but I'm having to deal.
In our current ASMX world we adopted a model of creating ServiceManager static classes for our interaction with web services. We're starting to migrate to WCF, attempting to follow the same model. At first I was dealing with performance problems, but I've tweaked a bit and we're running smoothly now, but I'm questioning my tactics. Here's a simplified version (removed error handling, caching, object manipulation, etc.) of what we're doing:
public static class ContentManager
{
private static StoryManagerClient _clientProxy = null;
const string _contentServiceResourceCode = "StorySvc";
// FOR CACHING
const int _getStoriesTTL = 300;
private static Dictionary<string, GetStoriesCacheItem> _getStoriesCache = new Dictionary<string, GetStoriesCacheItem>();
private static ReaderWriterLockSlim _cacheLockStories = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
public static Story[] GetStories(string categoryGuid)
{
// OMITTED - if category is cached and not expired, return from cache
// get endpoint address from FinderClient (ResourceManagement SVC)
UrlResource ur = FinderClient.GetUrlResource(_contentServiceResourceCode);
// Get proxy
StoryManagerClient svc = GetStoryServiceClient(ur.Url);
// create request params
GetStoriesRequest request = new GetStoriesRequest{}; // SIMPLIFIED
Manifest manifest = new Manifest{}; // SIMPLIFIED
// execute GetStories at WCF service
try
{
GetStoriesResponse response = svc.GetStories(manifest, request);
}
catch (Exception)
{
if (svc.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
svc.Abort();
}
throw;
}
// OMITTED - do stuff with response, cache if needed
// return....
}
internal static StoryManagerClient GetStoryServiceClient(string endpointAddress)
{
if (_clientProxy == null)
_clientProxy = new StoryManagerClient(GetServiceBinding(_contentServiceResourceCode), new EndpointAddress(endpointAddress));
return _clientProxy;
}
public static Binding GetServiceBinding(string bindingSettingName)
{
// uses Finder service to load a binding object - our alternative to definition in web.config
}
public static void PreloadContentServiceClient()
{
// get finder location
UrlResource ur = FinderClient.GetUrlResource(_contentServiceResourceCode);
// preload proxy
GetStoryServiceClient(ur.Url);
}
}
We're running smoothly now with round-trip calls completing in the 100ms range. Creating the PreloadContentServiceClient() method and adding to our global.asax got that "first call" performance down to that same level. And you might want to know we're using the DataContractSerializer, and the "Add Service Reference" method.
I've done a lot of reading on static classes, singletons, shared data contract assemblies, how to use the ChannelFactory pattern and a whole bunch of other things that I could do to our usage model...admittedly, some of its gone over my head. And, like I said, we seem to be running smoothly. I know I'm not seeing the big picture, though. Can someone tell me what I've ended up here with regards to channel pooling, proxy failures, etc. and why I should head down the ChannelFactory path? My gut says to just do it, but my head can't comprehend why...
Thanks!
ChannelFactory is typically used when you aren't using Add Service Reference - you have the contract via a shared assembly not generated via a WSDL. Add Service Reference uses ClientBase which is essentially creating the WCF channel for you behind the scenes.
When you are dealing with REST-ful services, WebChannelFactory provides a service-client like interface based off the shared assembly contract. You can't use Add Service Reference if your service only supports a REST-ful endpoint binding.
The only difference to you is preference - do you need full access the channel for custom behaviors, bindings, etc. or does Add Service Reference + SOAP supply you with enough of an interface for your needs.

Resources