I have a web service with three methods: StartReport(...), IsReportFinished(...) and GetReport(...), each with various parameters. I also have a client application (Silverlight) which will first call StartReport to trigger the generation of the report, then it will poll the server with IsReportFinished to see if it's done and once done, it calls GetReport to get the report. Very simple...
StartReport is simple. It first generates an unique ID, then it will use System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew() to create a new task that will generate the report and finally return the unique ID while the task continues to run in the background. IsReportFinished will just check the system for the unique ID to see if the report is done. Once done, the unique ID can be used to retrieve the report.
But I need a way to cancel the task, which is implemented by adding a new parameter to IsReportFinished. When called with cancel==true it will again check if the report is done. If the report is finished, there's nothing to cancel. Otherwise, it needs to cancel the task.
How do I cancel this task?
You could use a cancellation token to cancel TPL tasks. And here's another example.
Related
I'm using Polkadot.js in my project, and I have a function where user click to filter assets by categories. The issue is if the user click very fast, two rpc calls will be dispatched, instead of the later call overriding the first call, this will result in getting duplicate results.
Is there any way I can either cancel the first inflight rpc call, or let the second call overrides the first one? They share the same method name and the later one will have a higher id.
Any suggestions or help is much appreciated!
I have came across a requirement where i want axon to wait untill all events in the eventbus fired against a particular Command finishes their execution. I will the brief the scenario:
I have a RestController which fires below command to create an application entity:
#RestController
class myController{
#PostMapping("/create")
#ResponseBody
public String create(
org.axonframework.commandhandling.gateway.CommandGateway.sendAndWait(new CreateApplicationCommand());
System.out.println(“in myController:: after sending CreateApplicationCommand”);
}
}
This command is being handled in the Aggregate, The Aggregate class is annotated with org.axonframework.spring.stereotype.Aggregate:
#Aggregate
class MyAggregate{
#CommandHandler //org.axonframework.commandhandling.CommandHandler
private MyAggregate(CreateApplicationCommand command) {
org.axonframework.modelling.command.AggregateLifecycle.apply(new AppCreatedEvent());
System.out.println(“in MyAggregate:: after firing AppCreatedEvent”);
}
#EventSourcingHandler //org.axonframework.eventsourcing.EventSourcingHandler
private void on(AppCreatedEvent appCreatedEvent) {
// Updates the state of the aggregate
this.id = appCreatedEvent.getId();
this.name = appCreatedEvent.getName();
System.out.println(“in MyAggregate:: after updating state”);
}
}
The AppCreatedEvent is handled at 2 places:
In the Aggregate itself, as we can see above.
In the projection class as below:
#EventHandler //org.axonframework.eventhandling.EventHandler
void on(AppCreatedEvent appCreatedEvent){
// persists into database
System.out.println(“in Projection:: after saving into database”);
}
The problem here is after catching the event at first place(i.e., inside aggregate) the call gets returned to myController.
i.e. The output here is:
in MyAggregate:: after firing AppCreatedEvent
in MyAggregate:: after updating state
in myController:: after sending CreateApplicationCommand
in Projection:: after saving into database
The output which i want is:
in MyAggregate:: after firing AppCreatedEvent
in MyAggregate:: after updating state
in Projection:: after saving into database
in myController:: after sending CreateApplicationCommand
In simple words, i want axon to wait untill all events triggered against a particular command are executed completely and then return to the class which triggered the command.
After searching on the forum i got to know that all sendAndWait does is wait until the handling of the command and publication of the events is finalized, and then i tired with Reactor Extension as well using below but got same results: org.axonframework.extensions.reactor.commandhandling.gateway.ReactorCommandGateway.send(new CreateApplicationCommand()).block();
Can someone please help me out.
Thanks in advance.
What would be best in your situation, #rohit, is to embrace the fact you are using an eventually consistent solution here. Thus, Command Handling is entirely separate from Event Handling, making the Query Models you create eventually consistent with the Command Model (your aggregates). Therefore, you wouldn't necessarily wait for the events exactly but react when the Query Model is present.
Embracing this comes down to building your application such that "yeah, I know my response might not be up to date now, but it might be somewhere in the near future." It is thus recommended to subscribe to the result you are interested in after or before the fact you have dispatched a command.
For example, you could see this as using WebSockets with the STOMP protocol, or you could tap into Project Reactor and use the Flux result type to receive the results as they go.
From your description, I assume you or your business have decided that the UI component should react in the (old-fashioned) synchronous way. There's nothing wrong with that, but it will bite your *ss when it comes to using something inherently eventually consistent like CQRS. You can, however, spoof the fact you are synchronous in your front-end, if you will.
To achieve this, I would recommend using Axon's Subscription Query to subscribe to the query model you know will be updated by the command you will send.
In pseudo-code, that would look a little bit like this:
public Result mySynchronousCall(String identifier) {
// Subscribe to the updates to come
SubscriptionQueryResult<Result> result = QueryGateway.subscriptionQuery(...);
// Issue command to update
CommandGateway.send(...);
// Wait on the Flux for the first result, and then close it
return result.updates()
.next()
.map(...)
.timeout(...)
.doFinally(it -> result.close());
}
You could see this being done in this sample WebFluxRest class, by the way.
Note that you are essentially closing the door to the front-end to tap into the asynchronous goodness by doing this. It'll work and allow you to wait for the result to be there as soon as it is there, but you'll lose some flexibility.
How do I create PL/SQL function which waits for update on some row for specified timeout and then returns.
What I want to accomplish is - I have long running process which will update it's status to ASYNC_PROCESS table by process_id. I need function which returns with true/false when this process has completed, but also I need this function to wait some time for this process complete, return on timeout or return imediately with true, when process has completed. I don't want to use sleep(1 sec), because in such case I will be having 1 sec lag. I don't want to use sleep(1 msec), because in such case I am spending cpu resources (and 1msec lag).
Is there a good way how experienced programmer would accomplish this?
That function will be called from .NET (So I need minimal lag between DB operation and .NET/UI)
THNX,
Beef
I think the most sensible thing to do in this case is to use update triggers on that ASYNC_PROCESS table.
You should also look into the DBMS_ALERT package. Here's an edited excerpt from that doc:
Create an alert:
DBMS_ALERT.REGISTER('emp_table_alert');
Create a trigger on your table to fire the alert:
CREATE TRIGGER emptrig AFTER INSERT ON emp
BEGIN
DBMS_ALERT.SIGNAL('emp_table_alert', 'message_text');
END;
From your .net code, you can the use something that calls this:
DBMS_ALERT.WAITONE('emp_table_alert', :message, :status, :timeout);
Make sure you read the docs for what :status and :timeout do.
You should look at Oracle Advanced Queuing. It offers the kind of functions your looking for.
You'll probably need a separate queue table where a trigger on ASYNC_PROCESS inserts messages. You then use the AQ functions to retrieve (or wait for) the next message in the queue table.
If you're doing this in C#.NET, why wouldn't you simply spawn a worker thread to do the update (via ODAC)? Why hand the responsibility over to Oracle when (it seems) you want a .NET process to make the update call (in background) and have the main process be notified of its completion.
See here and here for examples, although there are several approaches in .NET for this (delegates, events, async callbacks, thread pools, etc)
I have an ASP.NET webpage that displays steps that must be performed server side. Those steps must be performed in the specified order, and the precedding step must be completed before the next one starts. For example, the steps would be:
1) Performing action A : Completed
2) Performing action B : In progress
3) Performing action C : Waiting
4) Performing action D : Waiting
When a step is completed, the corresponding status (Completed, In progress or Waiting) must be updated on the page.
So, how would you guys do that?
Here's what I have in mind:
The page calls a webmethod that performs the steps server side. When one step is completed, that webmethod updates a session variable that contains the step number and its status.
Then, every 5 seconds or so, the page calls another webmethod that checks the session variable and returns the step numbers that are completed. In javascript, update the status of the steps
Maybe there is a simpler way?
If it is possible that a person may close their browser & the steps should not be repeated, I'd consider using your DB or a cookie for the storage of steps and their corrosponding status.
It's the 'in progress' and 'waiting' that are the major cruxes of your problem as you won't be able to determine their state without some type of polling. I've done similar things before and used effectively the same method you described.
I'm writing a wizard UI based on the QWizard Qt object. There's one particular situation where I want the user to log in to a service using host, username, and password. The rest of the wizard then manipulates this service to do various setup tasks. The login may take a while, especially in error cases where the DNS name takes a long time to resolve -- or perhaps it may not even resolve at all.
So my idea is to make all three fields mandatory using the registerField mechanism, and when the user hits Next, we show a little throbber on the wizard page saying "Connecting to server, please wait..." while we try to connect in the background. If the connection succeeds, we advance to the next page. If not, we highlight the offending field and ask the user to try again.
However, I'm at a loss for how to accomplish this. The options I've thought of:
1) Override validatePage and have it start a thread in the background. Enter a wait inside validatePage() that pumps the Qt event loop until the thread finishes. You'd think this was the ugliest solution, but...
2) Hide the real Next button and add a custom Next button that, when clicked, dispatches my long running function in a thread and waits for a 'validation complete' signal to be raised by something. When that happens, we manually call QWizard::next() (and we completely bypass the real validation logic from validatePage and friends.) This is even uglier, but moves the ugliness to a different level that may make development easier.
Surely there's a better way?
It's not as visually appealing, but you could add a connecting page, and move to that page. If the connection succeeds, call next() on the wizard, and if the connection fails, call previous() and highlight the appropriate fields. It has the advantage of being relatively straightforward to code.
My final choice was #2 (override the Next button, simulate its behavior, but capture its click events manually and do the things I want to with it.) Writing the glue to define the Next button's behavior was minimal, and I was able to subclass QWizardPage with a number of hooks that let me run my task ON the same page, instead of having to switch to an interstitial page and worry about whether to go forwards or backwards. Thanks Caleb for your answer though.
I know this has already been answered (a long time ago!) but in case anyone else is having the same challenge. Another method for this is to create a QLineEdit, initiate it as empty and set it as a mandatory registered field. This will mean that "Next" is not enabled until it is filled with some text.
Run your connection task as normal and when it completes use setText to update the QLineEdit to "True" or "Logged in" or anything other than empty. This will then mean the built in isComplete function will be passed as this previously missing mandatory field is now complete. If you never add it to the layout then it won't be seen and the user won't be able to interact with it.
As an example ...
self.validated_field = QLineEdit("")
self.registerField('validated*', self.validated_field)
and then when your login process completes successfully
self.validated_field.setText("True")
This should do it and is very lightweight. Be sure though that you consider the scenario where a user then goes back to that page and whether you need to reset the field to blank. If that's the case then just add in the initialisePage() function to set it back to blank
self.validated_field.setText("")
Thinking about it you could also add the line edit to the display and disable it so that a user cannot update it and then give it a meaningful completion message to act as a status update...
self.validated_field = QLineEdit("")
self.validated_field.setDisabled(True)
self.validated_field.setStyleSheet("border:0;background-color:none")
self.main_layout.addWidget(self.validated_field)
self.registerField('validated*', self.validated_field)
and then when you update it..
self.validated_field.setText("Logged in")