I need to be able to serve responses for some particular requests from the main thread, while the rest can arrive from any thread. With that in mind,
I created a GRPC server which has 2 services, one is implemented as an AsyncService, and the other as a sync service.
However, when adding a completion queue, the sync service no longer responds to requests.
builder.RegisterService(this); // this inherits from Service (sync)
builder.RegisterService(&m_service); // m_services is an AsyncService
m_mainThreadQueue = builder.AddCompletionQueue();
m_server = std::unique_ptr<Server>(builder.BuildAndStart());
{
(new GrabSnapshotCallData(this, &m_service, m_mainThreadQueue.get()))->Proceed();
}
m_server->Wait();
Adding the completion queue makes the sync service no longer response to requests.
I couldn't find much information about this particular topic anywhere, so perhaps it is not really supported in grpc.
So, is there a way to have both async and sync services simultaneously on the same server? If not, what should I do to emulate that behavior
Related
So I need to build a WebSocket API for my org. The requirements from the business are pretty typical websocket pattern stuff except for one detail:
This websocket api will be used by different teams in our org, and each team needs its own separate activeconnections dynamodb table.
Now in a typical websocket api, there would be a single connections table that the connect and disconnect lambda functions write/delete to. Also, the hooks in the websocket api ensure that the connectionId needed to identify a connection/session are always in the event.requestContext. Easy peasy for a single connections table.
However, In my approach of having a separate active connections db/table for each team, it gets more complicated. Yes, it's true that for the connect lambda, It is very easy to code so that it expects a "TeamDatabaseID" from somewhere in the initial connection request - Headers, queryStringParameters, etc.
The problem is in the subsequent disconnect that could be triggered from either client or server. The disconnect hook will run the disconnect function, and pass in the default requestContext with the connectionId, but with no TeamDatabaseID - which the disconnect lambda needs to have access to in order to know which database to delete from.
Is there a way to do this? Is there some notion of a context object that I can set values in from the initial connection, so that when the disconnect happens, the teamDatabaseID is propagated in some way to the subsequent disconnect lambda? I tried writing to the requestContext - and that seems to only be alive for the execution of the given lambda.
Instead of having a single Amazon API Gateway Web Socket API for multiple teams, could you instead have one Web Socket API per team?
We want to integrate Salesforce into out Micro Service Structure in AWS.
There is a article about this here
So we want to subscribe lambda to certain platform events in salesforce.
But i found no code examples for this. I gave it a try using node.js (without lambda). This works great:
var jsforce = require('jsforce');
var username = 'xxxxxxxx';
var password = 'xxxxxxxxxxx';
var conn = new jsforce.Connection({loginUrl : 'https://test.salesforce.com'});
conn.login(username, password, function(err, userInfo) {
if (err) { return console.error(err); }
console.error('Connected '+userInfo);
conn.streaming.topic("/event/Contact_Change__e").subscribe(function(message) {
console.dir(message);
});
});
But i am not sure if this is the right way to do it in lambda.
My understanding of Salesforce Platform Events is that they use CometD under the hood. CometD allows the HTTP client (your code) to subscribe to events published by the HTTP server.
This means your client code needs to be running and be in a state where it is subscribed and listening for server events for the duration of time that you expect to be receiving events. In most cases, this duration is indefinate i.e. your client code expects to wait forever in a subscribed state, ready to receive events.
This is at odds with AWS Lambda functions, which are expected to complete execution in a relatively short amount of time (max 15 minutes last time I checked).
I would suggest you need a long running process, such as a nodejs application running in Elastic Beanstalk, or in a container. The nodejs application can stay running indefinately, in a subscribed state. Each time it receives an event, it could call your AWS Lambda function in order to implement the required actions.
Is it possible to invoke a AWS Step function by API Gateway endpoint and listen for the response (Until the workflow completes and return the results from end step)?
Currently I was able to find from the documentation that step functions are asynchronous by nature and has a final callback at the end. I have the need for the API invocation response getting the end results from step function flow without polling.
I guess that's not possible.
It's async and also there's the API Gateway Timeout
You don't need get the results by polling, you can combine Lambda, Step Functions, SNS and Websockets to get your results real time.
If you want to push a notification to a client (web browser) and you don't want to manage your own infra structure (scaling socket servers and etc) you could use AWS IOT. This tutorial may help you to get started:
http://gettechtalent.com/blog/tutorial-real-time-frontend-updates-with-react-serverless-and-websockets-on-aws-iot.html
If you only need to send the result to a backend (a web service endpoint for example), SNS should be fine.
This will probably work: create an HTTP "gateway" server that dispatches requests to your Steps workflow, then holds onto the request object until it receives a notification that allows it to send a response.
The gateway server will need to add a correlation ID to the payload, and the step workflow will need to carry that through.
One plausible way to receive the notification is with SQS.
Some psuedocode that's vaguely Node/Express flavoured:
const cache = new Cache(); // pick your favourite cache library
const gatewayId = guid(); // this lets us scale horizontally
const subscription = subscribeToQueue({
filter: { gatewayId },
topic: topicName,
});
httpServer.post( (req, res) => {
const correlationId = guid();
cache.add(correlationId, res);
submitToStepWorkflow(gatewayId, correlationId, req);
});
subscription.onNewMessage( message => {
const req = cache.pop(message.attributes.correlationId);
req.send(extractResponse(message));
req.end();
});
(The hypothetical queue reading API here is completely unlike aws-sdk's SQS API, but you get the idea)
So at the end of your step workflow, you just need to publish a message to SQS (perhaps via SNS) ensuring that the correlationId and gatewayId are preserved.
To handle failure, and avoid the cache filling with orphaned request objects, you'd probably want to set an expiry time on the cache, and handle expiry events:
cache.onExpiry( (key, req) => {
req.status(502);
req.send(gatewayTimeoutMessage());
req.end();
}
This whole approach only makes sense for workflows that you expect to normally complete in the sort of times that fit in a browser and proxy timeouts, of course.
I have a webservice (Restful) that send a message through ActiveMQ, and synchronously receive the response by creating a temporary listener in the same request.
The problem is, the listener wait for response of synchronous process , but never die. I need that listener receive response, and immediately stop the listener once is responded the request of webservice.
I have a great problem, because for each request of web services, a listener is created and this is active, producing overhead.
That code in the link is not production grade - simply an example how to make a "hello world" request reply.
Here is some psuedo code to deal with consuming responses blocking - and closing the consumer afterwards.
MessageConsumer responseConsumer = session.createConsumer(tempDest);
Messages response = responseConsumer.receive(waitTimeout);
// TODO handle msg
responseConsumer.close();
Temp destinations in JMS are pretty slow anyways. You can instead use JMSCorrelationID and make the replies go to a "regular queue" handled by a single consumer for all replies. That way, you need some thread handling code to hand over the message to the web service thread, but it will be non blocking and very fast.
I am trying to build a web service on top of hbase, so the code looks roughly like:
#GET
#Path("/blabla")
#Override
public List<String> getEvents($$$params$$$) {
......
//calling hbase query the events
......
}
When Hbase service is down, the hbase Java API keeps retrying to connect to Hbase region server util eventually it times out and throws a RT Exception:
NoServerForRegionException: Unable to find region for event,,99999999999999 after 10 tries.
The logic has no problem, my issue here is that the HttpClient times out way before hbase times out the retries. Then my web service API consumer gets no response, ugly.
Question -
What's the best practice here if you have server's timeout potentially longer than the http connection itself? How to have the web service respond to client gracefully in this case?
set the cashing for you scan object to some reasonable value. another thing, since you are using a web service to show the results to your users, i am assuming that you must be showing only a few rows(or records) at a time. you can use Hbase PageFilter so that you get only a specified no of rows each time and don't have to wait to get all the rows in one shot.