I have a main thread that does some work and it delegates an other thread asynchronously to send some data to another process.
I used a generic queue of shared_ptr(T), the main thread pushes into queue and the second thread pops the data and processes it.
I pushes many data types (i.e. shared_ptr(A), shared_ptr(B)) deriving from T.
class A : public T{};
class B : public T{};
What's the best way (efficient) to know the derived class from the generic type.
PS: Dynamic cast is not the best solution.
The producer sends data type.
The consumer pops the queue and does his job depending on the passed data.
The consumer uses this data when calling a given function.
The consumer should detect the derived class of the passed parameter to delegate the appropriate function to call.
void process(shared_ptr<T> ptr)
{
if (type(ptr) == A) do work using A..
if (type(ptr) == B) do staff using B..
...
}
Thank you for your help and time.
As an alternative to queuing instances of std::shared_ptr<T> you could queue instances of a callable type such as std::function<void()>.
#include <functional>
using task_type = std::function<void()>;
queue_type<task_type> queue;
You state that you want to do something like...
if (type(ptr) == A) do work using A..
if (type(ptr) == B) do staff using B..
Assuming the two functions in question are do_work and do_stuff the client code would then be...
auto dataA = std::make_shared<A>(...);
queue.enqueue([dataA]()
{
do_work(dataA);
});
auto dataB = std::make_shared<B>(...);
queue.enqueue([dataB]()
{
do_stuff(dataB);
});
And the consumer code...
while (true) {
try {
/*
* Dequeue the next task.
*/
auto f = queue.dequeue();
/*
* Run it.
*/
f();
catch (...) {
/*
* Handle errors here.
*/
}
}
My team is designing a scalable solution with micro-services architecture and planning to use gRPC as the transport communication between layers. And we've decided to use async grpc model. The design that example(greeter_async_server.cc) provides doesn't seem viable if I scale the number of RPC methods, because then I'll have to create a new class for every RPC method, and create their objects in HandleRpcs() like this.
Pastebin (Short example code).
void HandleRpcs() {
new CallDataForRPC1(&service_, cq_.get());
new CallDataForRPC2(&service_, cq_.get());
new CallDataForRPC3(&service, cq_.get());
// so on...
}
It'll be hard-coded, all the flexibility will be lost.
I've around 300-400RPC methods to implement and having 300-400 classes will be cumbersome and inefficient when I'll have to handle more than 100K RPC requests/sec and this solution is a very bad design. I can't bear the overhead of creation of objects this way on every single request. Can somebody kindly provide me a workaround for this. Can async grpc c++ not be simple like its sync companion?
Edit: In favour of making the situation more clear, and for those who might be struggling to grasp the flow of this async example, I'm writing what I've understood so far, please make me correct if wrong somewhere.
In async grpc, every time we have to bind a unique-tag with the completion-queue so that when we poll, the server can give it back to us when the particular RPC will be hit by the client, and we infer from the returned unique-tag about the type of the call.
service_->RequestRPC2(&ctx_, &request_, &responder_, cq_, cq_,this); Here we're using the address of the current object as the unique-tag. This is like registering for our RPC call on the completion queue. Then we poll down in HandleRPCs() to see if the client hits the RPC, if so then cq_->Next(&tag, &OK) will fill the tag. The polling code snippet:
while (true) {
GPR_ASSERT(cq_->Next(&tag, &ok));
GPR_ASSERT(ok);
static_cast<CallData*>(tag)->Proceed();
}
Since, the unique-tag that we registered into the queue was the address of the CallData object so we're able to call Proceed(). This was fine for one RPC with its logic inside Proceed(). But with more RPCs each time we'll have all of them inside the CallData, then on polling, we'll be calling the only one Proceed() which will contain logic to (say) RPC1(postgres calls), RPC2(mongodb calls), .. so on. This is like writing all my program inside one function. So, to avoid this, I used a GenericCallData class with the virtual void Proceed() and made derived classes out of it, one class per RPC with their own logic inside their own Proceed(). This is a working solution but I want to avoid writing many classes.
Another solution I tried was keeping all RPC-function-logics out of the proceed() and into their own functions and maintaining a global std::map<long, std::function</*some params*/>> . So whenever I register an RPC with unique-tag onto the queue, I store its corresponding logic function (which I'll surely hard code into the statement and bind all the parameters required), then the unique-tag as key. On polling, when I get the &tag I do a lookup in the map for this key and call the corresponding saved function. Now, there's one more hurdle, I'll have to do this inside the function logic:
// pseudo code
void function(reply, responder, context, service)
{
// register this RPC with another unique tag so to serve new incoming request of the same type on the completion queue
service_->RequestRPC1(/*params*/, new_unique_id);
// now again save this new_unique_id and current function into the map, so when tag will be returned we can do lookup
map.emplace(new_unique_id, function);
// now you're free to do your logic
// do your logic
}
You see this, code has spread into another module now, and it's per RPC based.
Hope it clears the situation.
I thought if somebody could have implemented this type of server in a more easy way.
This post is pretty old by now but I have not seen any answer or example regarding this so I will show how I solved it to any other readers. I have around 30 RPC calls and was looking for a way of reducing the footprint when adding and removing RPC calls. It took me some iterations to figure out a good way to solve it.
So my interface for getting RPC requests from my (g)RPC library is a callback interface that the recepiant need to implement. The interface looks like this:
class IRpcRequestHandler
{
public:
virtual ~IRpcRequestHandler() = default;
virtual void onZigbeeOpenNetworkRequest(const smarthome::ZigbeeOpenNetworkRequest& req,
smarthome::Response& res) = 0;
virtual void onZigbeeTouchlinkDeviceRequest(const smarthome::ZigbeeTouchlinkDeviceRequest& req,
smarthome::Response& res) = 0;
...
};
And some code for setting up/register each RPC method after the gRPC server is started:
void ready()
{
SETUP_SMARTHOME_CALL("ZigbeeOpenNetwork", // Alias that is used for debug messages
smarthome::Command::AsyncService::RequestZigbeeOpenNetwork, // Generated gRPC service method for async.
smarthome::ZigbeeOpenNetworkRequest, // Generated gRPC service request message
smarthome::Response, // Generated gRPC service response message
IRpcRequestHandler::onZigbeeOpenNetworkRequest); // The callback method to call when request has arrived.
SETUP_SMARTHOME_CALL("ZigbeeTouchlinkDevice",
smarthome::Command::AsyncService::RequestZigbeeTouchlinkDevice,
smarthome::ZigbeeTouchlinkDeviceRequest,
smarthome::Response,
IRpcRequestHandler::onZigbeeTouchlinkDeviceRequest);
...
}
This is all that you need to care about when adding and removing RPC methods.
The SETUP_SMARTHOME_CALL is a home-cooked macro which looks like this:
#define SETUP_SMARTHOME_CALL(ALIAS, SERVICE, REQ, RES, CALLBACK_FUNC) \
new ServerCallData<REQ, RES>( \
ALIAS, \
std::bind(&SERVICE, \
&mCommandService, \
std::placeholders::_1, \
std::placeholders::_2, \
std::placeholders::_3, \
std::placeholders::_4, \
std::placeholders::_5, \
std::placeholders::_6), \
mCompletionQueue.get(), \
std::bind(&CALLBACK_FUNC, requestHandler, std::placeholders::_1, std::placeholders::_2))
I think the ServerCallData class looks like the one from gRPCs examples with a few modifications. ServerCallData is derived from a non-templete class with an abstract function void proceed(bool ok) for the CompletionQueue::Next() handling. When ServerCallData is created, it will call the SERVICE method to register itself on the CompletionQueue and on every first proceed(ok) call, it will clone itself which will register another instance. I can post some sample code for that as well if someone is interested.
EDIT: Added some more sample code below.
GrpcServer
class GrpcServer
{
public:
explicit GrpcServer(std::vector<grpc::Service*> services);
virtual ~GrpcServer();
void run(const std::string& sslKey,
const std::string& sslCert,
const std::string& password,
const std::string& listenAddr,
uint32_t port,
uint32_t threads = 1);
private:
virtual void ready(); // Called after gRPC server is created and before polling CQ.
void handleRpcs(); // Function that polls from CQ, can be run by multiple threads. Casts object to CallData and calls CallData::proceed().
std::unique_ptr<ServerCompletionQueue> mCompletionQueue;
std::unique_ptr<Server> mServer;
std::vector<grpc::Service*> mServices;
std::list<std::shared_ptr<std::thread>> mThreads;
...
}
And the main part of the CallData object:
template <typename TREQUEST, typename TREPLY>
class ServerCallData : public ServerCallMethod
{
public:
explicit ServerCallData(const std::string& methodName,
std::function<void(ServerContext*,
TREQUEST*,
::grpc::ServerAsyncResponseWriter<TREPLY>*,
::grpc::CompletionQueue*,
::grpc::ServerCompletionQueue*,
void*)> serviceFunc,
grpc::ServerCompletionQueue* completionQueue,
std::function<void(const TREQUEST&, TREPLY&)> callback,
bool first = false)
: ServerCallMethod(methodName),
mResponder(&mContext),
serviceFunc(serviceFunc),
completionQueue(completionQueue),
callback(callback)
{
requestNewCall();
}
void proceed(bool ok) override
{
if (!ok)
{
delete this;
return;
}
if (callStatus() == ServerCallMethod::PROCESS)
{
callStatus() = ServerCallMethod::FINISH;
new ServerCallData<TREQUEST, TREPLY>(callMethodName(), serviceFunc, completionQueue, callback);
try
{
callback(mRequest, mReply);
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
mResponder.Finish(mReply, Status::CANCELLED, this);
return;
}
mResponder.Finish(mReply, Status::OK, this);
}
else
{
delete this;
}
}
private:
void requestNewCall()
{
serviceFunc(
&mContext, &mRequest, &mResponder, completionQueue, completionQueue, this);
}
ServerContext mContext;
TREQUEST mRequest;
TREPLY mReply;
ServerAsyncResponseWriter<TREPLY> mResponder;
std::function<void(ServerContext*,
TREQUEST*,
::grpc::ServerAsyncResponseWriter<TREPLY>*,
::grpc::CompletionQueue*,
::grpc::ServerCompletionQueue*,
void*)>
serviceFunc;
std::function<void(const TREQUEST&, TREPLY&)> callback;
grpc::ServerCompletionQueue* completionQueue;
};
Although the thread is old I wanted to share a solution I am currently implementing. It mainly consists templated classes inheriting CallData to be scalable. This way, each new rpc will only require specializing the templates of the required CallData methods.
Calldata header:
class CallData {
protected:
enum Status { CREATE, PROCESS, FINISH };
Status status;
virtual void treat_create() = 0;
virtual void treat_process() = 0;
public:
void Proceed();
};
CallData Proceed implementation:
void CallData::Proceed() {
switch (status) {
case CREATE:
status = PROCESS;
treat_create();
break;
case PROCESS:
status = FINISH;
treat_process();
break;
case FINISH:
delete this;
}
}
Inheriting from CallData header (simplified):
template <typename Request, typename Reply>
class CallDataTemplated : CallData {
static_assert(std::is_base_of<google::protobuf::Message, Request>::value,
"Request and reply must be protobuf messages");
static_assert(std::is_base_of<google::protobuf::Message, Reply>::value,
"Request and reply must be protobuf messages");
private:
Service,Cq,Context,ResponseWriter,...
Request request;
Reply reply;
protected:
void treat_create() override;
void treat_process() override;
public:
...
};
Then, for specific rpc's in theory you should be able to do things like:
template<>
void CallDataTemplated<HelloRequest, HelloReply>::treat_process() {
...
}
It's a lot of templated methods but preferable to creating a class per rpc from my point of view.
In my system, I have a juggle a bunch of TCP clients and I am bit confused on how to design it [most of my experience is in C, hence the insecurity]. I am using boost ASIO for managing connection. These are the components I have
A TCPStream class : thin wrapper over boost asio
an IPC protocol, which implement a protocol over TCP:
basically Each message starts with a type and length field
so we can read the individual messages out of the stream.
Connection classes which handle the messages
Observer class which monitors connections
I am writing pseudo C++ code to be concise. I think you will get the idea
class TCPStream {
boost::asio::socket socket_;
public:
template <typename F>
void connect (F f)
{
socket_.connect(f);
}
template <typename F>
void read (F f)
{
socket_.read(f);
}
};
class IpcProtocol : public TCPStream {
public:
template <typename F
void read (F f)
{
TCPStream::read(
[f] (buffer, err) {
while (msg = read_indvidual_message(buffer)) {
// **** this is a violation of how this pattern is
// supposed to work. Ideally there should a callback
// for individual message. Here the same callback
// is called for N no. of messages. But in our case
// its the same callback everytime so this should be
// fine - just avoids some function calls.
f(msg);
};
};
)
}
};
Lets say I have a bunch of TCP connections and there are a handler class
for each of the connection. Lets name it Connection1, Connection2 ...
class Connection {
virtual int type() = 0;
};
class Connection1 : public Connection {
shared_ptr<IpcProtocol> ipc_;
int type ()
{
return 1;
}
void start ()
{
ipc_.connect([self = shared_from_this()](){ self->connected(); });
ipc_.read(
[self = shared_from_this()](msg, err) {
if (!err)
self->process(msg);
} else {
self->error();
}
});
}
void connected ()
{
observer.notify_connected(shared_from_this());
}
void error ()
{
observer.notify_error(shared_from_this());
}
};
This pattern repeats for all connections one way or other.
messages are processed by the connection class itself. But it will let know of
other events [connect, error] to an observer. The reason -
Restart the connection, everytime it disconnect
Bunch of guys needs to know if the connection is established so that they can
send initial request/confguration to server.
There are things that needs be done based on connection status of muliple connections
Eg: if connection1 and connection2 are established, then start connection3 etc.
I added a middle Observer class is there so that the observers do have to directly connect to the connection everytime it is restarted. Each time connection breaks, the connection class is deleted and new one is created.
class Listeners {
public:
virtual void notify_error(shared_ptr<Connection>) = 0;
virtual void notify_connect(shared_ptr<Connection>) = 0;
virtual void interested(int type) = 0;
};
class Observer {
std::vector<Listeners *> listeners_;
public:
void notify_connect(shared_ptr<Connection> connection)
{
for (listener : listeners_) {
if (listener->interested(connection->type())) {
listener->notify_error(connection);
}
}
}
};
Now a rough prototype of this works. But I was wondering if this class design
any good. There are multiple streaming servers which will continuously produce states and send it to my module to program the state in h/w. This needs to be extensible as more clients will be added in future.
Threading
The legacy code had one thread per TCP connection and this worked fine. Here I am trying to handle multiple connections on same thread. Still there will be multiple threads calling ioservice. So the observer will run on multiple threads. I am planning to have a mutex per Listener, so that listeners wont get multiple events concurrently.
HTTP Implements a protocol over TCP so the HTTP Server asio examples are a good starting point for your design, especially: HTTP Server 2, HTTP Server 3 and HTTP Server 4.
Note: that connection lifetime is likely to be an issue, especially since you intend to use class member functions as handlers, see the question and answers here: How to design proper release of a boost::asio socket or wrapper thereof.
I'm wondering how to develop an asynchronous API using promises and futures.
The application is using a single data stream that is used for both unsolicited periodic data and requesty/reply communication.
For the requesty/reply blocking until the reply is received is not an option and I don't want lo litter the code using callbacks, so I'd like to write some kind of a SendMessage that accepts the id of the expected reply and exits only upon reception. It's up to the caller to read the reply.
A candidate API could be:
std::future<void> sendMessage(Message msg, id expected)
{
// Write the message
auto promise = make_shared<std::promise<void>>();
// Memorize the promise somewhere accessible to the receiving thread
return promise->get_future();
}
The worker thread upon reception of a message should be able to query a data-structure to know if there is someone waiting for it and "release" the future.
Given that promises are not re-usable what I'm trying to understand is what kind of data-structure should I use to manage "in flight" promises.
This answer has been rewritten.
Setting the state of a shared flag can enable the worker to know whether the other side, say boss, is still expecting the result.
The shared flag along with the promise and the future can be enclosed into a class (template), say Request. The boss set the flag by destructing his copy of the request. And the worker query whether the boss is still expecting the request being done by calling certain member function on his own copy of the request.
Simultaneous reading/writing on the flag should be probably synchronized.
The boss may not access the promise and the worker may not access the future.
There should be at most two copies of the request, becaue the flag will be set on the destruction of the request object. For achieving this, we can delcare corresponding member functions as delete or private, and provide two copies of the request on construction.
Here follows a simple implementation of request:
#include <atomic>
#include <future>
#include <memory>
template <class T>
class Request {
public:
struct Detail {
std::atomic<bool> is_canceled_{false};
std::promise<T> promise_;
std::future<T> future_ = promise_.get_future();
};
static auto NewRequest() {
std::unique_ptr<Request> copy1{new Request()};
std::unique_ptr<Request> copy2{new Request(*copy1)};
return std::make_pair(std::move(copy1), std::move(copy2));
}
Request(Request &&) = delete;
~Request() {
detail_->is_canceled_.store(true);
}
Request &operator=(const Request &) = delete;
Request &operator=(Request &&) = delete;
// simple api
std::promise<T> &Promise(const WorkerType &) {
return detail_->promise_;
}
std::future<T> &Future(const BossType &) {
return detail_->future_;
}
// return value:
// true if available, false otherwise
bool CheckAvailable() {
return detail_->is_canceled_.load() == false;
}
private:
Request() : detail_(new Detail{}) {}
Request(const Request &) = default;
std::shared_ptr<Detail> detail_;
};
template <class T>
auto SendMessage() {
auto result = Request<T>::NewRequest();
// TODO : send result.second(the another copy) to the worker
return std::move(result.first);
}
New request is contructed by factroy function NewRequest, the return value is a std::pair which contains two std::unique_ptr, each hold a copy of the newly created request.
The worker can now use the member function CheckAvailable() to check whether the request is canceled.
And the shared state is managed proprely(I believe) by the std::shared_ptr.
Note on std::promise<T> &Promise(const WorkerType &): The const reference parameter(which should be replaced with a propre type according to your implementation) is for preventing the boss from calling this function by accident while the worker should be able to easily provide a propre argument for calling this function. The same for std::future<T> &Future(const BossType &).
Learning c++ and trying to get familiar with some patterns. The signals2 doc clearly has a vast array of things I can do with slots and signals. What I don't understand is what types of applications (use cases) I should use it for.
I'm thinking along the lines of a state machine dispatching change events. Coming from a dynamically typed background (C#,Java etc) you'd use an event dispatcher or a static ref or a callback.
Are there difficulties in c++ with using cross-class callbacks? Is that essentially why signals2 exists?
One to the example cases is a document/view. How is this pattern better suited than say, using a vector of functions and calling each one in a loop, or say a lambda that calls state changes in registered listening class instances?
class Document
{
public:
typedef boost::signals2::signal<void ()> signal_t;
public:
Document()
{}
/* Connect a slot to the signal which will be emitted whenever
text is appended to the document. */
boost::signals2::connection connect(const signal_t::slot_type &subscriber)
{
return m_sig.connect(subscriber);
}
void append(const char* s)
{
m_text += s;
m_sig();
}
const std::string& getText() const
{
return m_text;
}
private:
signal_t m_sig;
std::string m_text;
};
and
class TextView
{
public:
TextView(Document& doc): m_document(doc)
{
m_connection = m_document.connect(boost::bind(&TextView::refresh, this));
}
~TextView()
{
m_connection.disconnect();
}
void refresh() const
{
std::cout << "TextView: " << m_document.getText() << std::endl;
}
private:
Document& m_document;
boost::signals2::connection m_connection;
};
Boost.Signals2 is not just "an array of callbacks", it has a lot of added value. IMO, the most important points are:
Thread-safety: several threads may connect/disconnect/invoke the same signal concurrently, without introducing race conditions. This is especially useful when communicating with an asynchronous subsystem, like an Active Object running in its own thread.
connection and scoped_connection handles that allow disconnection without having direct access to the signal. Note that this is the only way to disconnect incomparable slots, like boost::function (or std::function).
Temporary slot blocking. Provides a clean way to temporarily disable a listening module (eg. when a user requests to pause receiving messages in a view).
Automatic slot lifespan tracking: a signal disconnects automatically from "expired" slots. Consider the situation when a slot is a binder referencing a non-copyable object managed by shared_ptrs:
shared_ptr<listener> l = listener::create();
auto slot = bind(&listener::listen, l.get()); // we don't want aSignal_ to affect `listener` lifespan
aSignal_.connect(your_signal_type::slot_type(slot).track(l)); // but do want to disconnect automatically when it gets destroyed
Certainly, one can re-implement all the above functionality on his own "using a vector of functions and calling each one in a loop" etc, but the question is how it would be better than Boost.Signals2. Re-inventing the wheel is rarely a good idea.