I understand how RAP creates scopes have a specific thread for each client and so on. I also understand how the application scope is unique among several clients, however I don't know how to access that specific scope in a single thread manner.
I would like to have a server side (with access to databases and stuff) that is a single execution to ensure it has a global knowledge of all transaction and that requests from clients are executed in sequence instead of parallel.
Currently I am accessing the application context as follows from the UI:
synchronized( MyServer.class ) {
ApplicationContext appContext = RWT.getApplicationContext();
MyServer myServer = (MyServer) appContext.getAttribute("myServer");
if (myServer == null){
myServer = new MyServer();
appContext.setAttribute("myServer", myServer);
}
myServer.doSomething(RWTUtils.getSessionID());
}
Even if I access myServer object there and trigger requests, the execution will still be running in the UI thread.
For now the only way to ensure the sequence is to use synchronized as follows on my server
public class MyServer {
String text = "";
public void doSomething(String string) {
try {
synchronized (this) {
System.out.println("doSomething - start :" + string);
text += "[" + string + "]";
System.out.println("text: " + (text));
Thread.sleep(10000);
System.out.println("text: " + (text));
System.out.println("doSomething - stop :" + string);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Is there a better way to not have to manage the thread synchronization myself?
Any help is welcome
EDIT:
To better explain myself, here is what I mean. Either I trust the database to handle multiple request properly and I have to handle also some other knowledge in a synchronized manner to share information between clients (example A) or I find a solution where another thread handles both (example B), the knowledge and the database. Of course, the problem here is that one client may block the others, but this is can be managed with background threads for long actions, most of them will be no problem. My initial question was, is there maybe already some specific thread of the application scope that does Example B or is Example A actually the way to go?
Conclusion (so far)
Basically, option A) is the way to go. For database access it will require connection pooling and for shared information it will require thoughtful synchronization of key objects. Main attention has to be done in the database design and the synchronization of objects to ensure that two clients cannot write incompatible data at the same time (e.g. write contradicting entries that make the result dependent of the write order).
First of all, the way that you create MyServer in the first snippet is not thread safe. You are likely to create more than one instance of MyServer.
You need to synchronize the creation of MyServer, like this for example:
synchronized( MyServer.class ) {
MyServer myServer = (MyServer) appContext.getAttribute("myServer");
if (myServer == null){
myServer = new MyServer();
appContext.setAttribute("myServer", myServer);
}
}
See also this post How to implement thread-safe lazy initialization? for other possible solutions.
Furthermore, your code is calling doSomething() on the client thread (i.e. the UI thread) which will cause each client to wait until pending requests of other clients are processed. The client UI will become unresponsive.
To solve this problem your code should call doSomething() (or any other long-running operation for that matter) from a background thread (see also
Threads in RAP)
When the background thread has finished, you should use Server Push to update the UI.
Related
I am not really seeking code examples, but I'm hoping someone can review my program design and provide feedback. I am trying to figure out how do I ensure I have one instance of my "workflow" running at a time.
I am working in C++.
This is my workflow:
I read rows off of a Postgres database.
If the table has any records, I want to do these instructions:
Read the records and transform them to JSON
Send the JSON document to a remote Web service
Parse the response from the service. The service tells me which records were saved or not saved, based on their primary key.
I delete the successfully saved records
I log the unsuccessful records (there's another process that consumes the logs and so my work is done).
I want to perform all of this threads using a separate thread (or "task", whatever higher-level abstraction is available in C++), and I want to make sure that if my function for [1] gets called multiple times, the additional calls basically get "dropped" if step 1 is already in flight.
In C++, I believe I can use a flag and a mutex. I use a something like std::lock_guard<std::mutex> at the top of my method. Then the next line checks for a flag.
// MyWorkflow.cpp
std::mutex myMutex;
int inFlight = 0;
void process() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(myMutex);
if (inflight) {
return;
}
inflight = 1;
std::vector<Widget> widgets = readFromMyTable();
std::string json = getJson(&widgets);
... // Send the json to the remote service and handle the response
}
Okay, let me explain my confusion. I want to use Curl to perform the HTTP request. But Curl works asynchronously. And so if I make the asynchronous HTTP call via Curl, my update function will just return and myMutex will be released, right?
I think in my asynchronous response handler, I need to call a second function that's in MyWorkflow.cpp
void markCompletion() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(myMutex);
inFlight = 0; // Reset the inflight flag here
}
Is this the right approach? I am worried that if an exception is thrown anywhere before I call markCompletion(), I will block all future callers. I think I need to ensure I have proper exception handling and always call markCompletion().
I am terribly sorry for asking such a noob question, but I really want to learn to do this the right way.
We have a deadlock situation which occured because of this heavy load on the microservice (Say A) causing multiple requests from different client services (B,C). So these calls from B and C come for the same clientId(key) and are served by different instances of A and they try to update the same clientId data in database at same time causing below error.
CannotAcquireLockException is thrown,
(SQL Error: 60, SQLState: 61000..
ORA-00060: deadlock detected while waiting for resource
We have decided to implement sharding at load balancer(haproxy) level which will ensure same instance of A will always serve the requests from B and C for a specific key(clientId), so we dont have multiple instances processing the request for same key(clientId).
Now we get into the mode of everything in single jvm as we have made sure requests from B and C for a specific clientId always come to same instance of A.
With this its still possible that requests from B and C services come for same clientId with difference in time of nanoseconds. Any then multiple threads will again try to update the same clientId data in database at same time causing same error again.
To improve this we are looking for possible solutions and one solutions is ReentrantReadWriteLock which should take care of this based on the concepts.
We are using spring data jpa and have a save being done which looks like
clientJpaRepository.save(ClientObject);
Now is it possible to use something like below.
public void save(Client clientObject) {
String clientId = clientObject.getClientId();
try {
boolean isLockAcquired = writeLock.tryLock(100, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
if (isLockAcquired) {
clientJpaRepository.save(clientObject);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
log.error("exception occured trying to acquire lock for clientId={}", clientId);
} finally {
writeLock.unlock();
}
}
I am not very sure how its going to deal with the keys. As in i don't want any threads to block if they are wanting to update for different key(clientId 2).
Also, other thing to note is there could be reads happening as part of other API calls for this data from database. They would not be waiting too long hopefully and i hope i don't need to make any changes there for the reads.
Sorry for the long question, Hope i will hear from someone soon.
Thanks.
I have this scenario where I have a WebApi and an endpoint that when triggered does a lot of work (around 2-5min). It is a POST endpoint with side effects and I would like to limit the execution so that if 2 requests are sent to this endpoint (should not happen, but better safe than sorry), one of them will have to wait in order to avoid race conditions.
I first tried to use a simple static lock inside the controller like this:
lock (_lockObj)
{
var results = await _service.LongRunningWithSideEffects();
return Ok(results);
}
this is of course not possible because of the await inside the lock statement.
Another solution I considered was to use a SemaphoreSlim implementation like this:
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
var results = await _service.LongRunningWithSideEffects();
return Ok(results);
}
finally
{
semaphore.Release();
}
However, according to MSDN:
The SemaphoreSlim class represents a lightweight, fast semaphore that can be used for waiting within a single process when wait times are expected to be very short.
Since in this scenario the wait times may even reach 5 minutes, what should I use for concurrency control?
EDIT (in response to plog17):
I do understand that passing this task onto a service might be the optimal way, however, I do not necessarily want to queue something in the background that still runs after the request is done.
The request involves other requests and integrations that take some time, but I would still like the user to wait for this request to finish and get a response regardless.
This request is expected to be only fired once a day at a specific time by a cron job. However, there is also an option to fire it manually by a developer (mostly in case something goes wrong with the job) and I would like to ensure the API doesn't run into concurrency issues if the developer e.g. double-sends the request accidentally etc.
If only one request of that sort can be processed at a given time, why not implement a queue ?
With such design, no more need to lock nor wait while processing the long running request.
Flow could be:
Client POST /RessourcesToProcess, should receive 202-Accepted quickly
HttpController simply queue the task to proceed (and return the 202-accepted)
Other service (windows service?) dequeue next task to proceed
Proceed task
Update resource status
During this process, client should be easily able to get status of requests previously made:
If task not found: 404-NotFound. Ressource not found for id 123
If task processing: 200-OK. 123 is processing.
If task done: 200-OK. Process response.
Your controller could look like:
public class TaskController
{
//constructor and private members
[HttpPost, Route("")]
public void QueueTask(RequestBody body)
{
messageQueue.Add(body);
}
[HttpGet, Route("taskId")]
public void QueueTask(string taskId)
{
YourThing thing = tasksRepository.Get(taskId);
if (thing == null)
{
return NotFound("thing does not exist");
}
if (thing.IsProcessing)
{
return Ok("thing is processing");
}
if (!thing.IsProcessing)
{
return Ok("thing is not processing yet");
}
//here we assume thing had been processed
return Ok(thing.ResponseContent);
}
}
This design suggests that you do not handle long running process inside your WebApi. Indeed, it may not be the best design choice. If you still want to do so, you may want to read:
Long running task in WebAPI
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2014/06/04/queuebackgroundworkitem-to-reliably-schedule-and-run-background-processes-in-asp-net/
Referring to HTTP Server- Single threaded Implementation
I am trying to Explicitly control Lifetime of server instance
My Requirements are:
1) I should be able to explicitly destroy the server
2) I need to keep multiple Server Instances alive which should listen to different ports
3) Manager Class maintains list of all active server instances; should be able to create and destroy the server instances by create and drop methods
I am trying to implement Requirement 1 and
I have come up with code:
void server::stop()
{
DEBUG_MSG("Stopped");
io_service_.post(boost::bind(&server::handle_stop, this));
}
where handle_stop() is
void server::handle_stop()
{
// The server is stopped by cancelling all outstanding asynchronous
// operations. Once all operations have finished the io_service::run() call
// will exit.
acceptor_.close();
connection_manager_.stop_all();
}
I try to call it from main() as:
try
{
http::server::server s("127.0.0.1","8973");
// Run the server until stopped.
s.run();
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::seconds(3));
s.stop();
}
catch (std::exception& e)
{
std::cerr << "exception: " << e.what() << "\n";
}
Question 1)
I am not able to call server::handle_stop().
I suppose io_service_.run() is blocking my s.stop() call.
void server::run()
{
// The io_service::run() call will block until all asynchronous operations
// have finished. While the server is running, there is always at least one
// asynchronous operation outstanding: the asynchronous accept call waiting
// for new incoming connections.
io_service_.run();
}
How do I proceed?
Question 2:
For requirement 2) where I need to have multiple server instances, i think I will need to create an io_service instance in main and must pass the same instance to all server instances. Am I right?
Is it mandatory to have only one io_service instance per process or can I have more than one ?
EDIT
My aim is to implement a class which can control multi server instances:
Something of below sort (Incorrect code // Just giving view, what I try to implement ) I want to achieve-
How do i design?
I have confusion regarding io_Service and how do I cleanly call mng.create(), mng.drop()
Class Manager{
public:
void createServer(ServerPtr)
{
list_.insert(make_shared<Server> (ip, port));
}
void drop()
{
list_.drop((ServerPtr));
}
private:
io_service iO_;
set<server> list_;
};
main()
{
io_service io;
Manager mng(io);
mng.createServer(ip1,port1);
mng.createServer(ip2,port2);
io.run();
mng.drop(ip1,port1);
}
I am not able to call server::handle_stop().
As you say, run() won't return until the service is stopped or runs out of work. There's no point calling stop() after that.
In a single-threaded program, you can call stop() from an I/O handler - for your example, you could use a deadline_timer to call it after three seconds. Or you could do something complicated with poll() rather than run(), but I wouldn't recommend that.
In a multi-threaded program, you could call it from another thread than the one calling run(), as long as you make sure it's thread-safe.
For [multiple servers] I think I will need to create an io_service instance in main
Yes, that's probably the best thing to do.
Is it mandatory to have only one io_service instance per process or can I have more than one?
You can have as many as you like. But I think you can only run one at a time on a single thread, so it would be tricky to have more than one in a single-threaded program. I'd have a single instance that all the servers can use.
You are right, it's not working because you call stop after blocking run, and run blocks until there are some unhandled callbacks. There are multiple ways to solve this and it depands from what part of program stop will be called:
If you can call it from another thread, then run each instance of server in separate thread.
If you need to stop server after some IO operation for example you can simply do as you have tried io_service_.post(boost::bind(&server::handle_stop, this));, but it should be registered from another thread or from another callback in current thread.
You can use io_service::poll(). It is non-blocking version of run, so you create a loop where you call poll until you need to stop server.
You can do it both ways. Even with the link you provided you can take a look at:
HTTP Server 3 - An HTTP server using a single io_service and a thread pool
and HTTP Server 2 - An HTTP server using an io_service-per-CPU design
I'm looking for the best way to modify the Boost Asio HTTP Server 3 example to maintain a list of the currently connected clients.
If I modify server.hpp from the example as:
class server : private boost::noncopyable
{
public:
typedef std::vector< connection_ptr > ConnectionList;
// ...
ConnectionList::const_iterator GetClientList() const
{
return connection_list_.begin();
};
void handle_accept(const boost::system::error_code& e)
{
if (!e)
{
connection_list_.push_back( new_connection_ );
new_connection_->start();
// ...
}
}
private:
ConnectionList connection_list_;
};
Then I mess up the lifetime of the connection object such that it doesn't go out of scope and disconnect from the client because it still has a reference maintained in the ConnectionList.
If instead my ConnectionList is defined as typedef std::vector< boost::weak_ptr< connection > > ConnectionList; then I run the risk of the client disconnecting and nullifying its pointer while somebody is using it from GetClientList().
Anybody have a suggestion on a good & safe way to do this?
Thanks,
PaulH
HTTP is stateless. That means it's difficult to even define what "currently connected client" means, not to mention keeping track of which clients are at any given time. The only time there's really a "current client" is from the time a request is received to the time that request is serviced (often only a few milliseconds). A connection is not maintained even for the duration of downloading one page -- rather, each item on the page is requested and sent separately.
The typical method for handling this is to use a fairly simple timeout -- a client is considered "connected" for some arbitrary length of time (a few minutes) after they send in a request. A cookie of some sort is used to identify the client sending in a particular request.
The rest of what you're talking about is just a matter of making sure the collection you use to hold connection information is thread safe. You have one thread that adds connections, one thread that deletes them, and N threads that use the data currently in the list. The standard collections don't guarantee any thread safety, but there are others around that do.