I have a List (e.g. the output of a database query) variable, which I use to create actors (they could be many and they are varied). I use the following code (in TestedActor preStart()), the actor qualified name is from the List variable as an example):
Class<?> classobject = Class.forName("com.java.anything.actor.MyActor"); //create class from name string
ActorRef actref = getContext().actorOf(Props.create(classobject), actorname); //creation
the code was tested:
#Test
public void testPreStart() throws Exception {
final Props props = Props.create(TestedActor.class);
final TestActorRef<TestedActor > ref = TestActorRef.create(system, props, "testA");
#SuppressWarnings("unused")
final TestedActor actor = ref.underlyingActor();
}
EDIT : it is working fine (contrary to the previous post, where I have seen a timeout error, it turned out as an unrelated alarm).
I have googled some posts related to this issue (e.g. suggesting the usage of newInstance), however I am still confused as these were superseded by mentioning it as a bad pattern. So, I am looking for a solution in java, which is also safe from the akka point of view (or the confirmation of the above pattern).
Maybe if you would write us why you need to create those actors this way it would help to find the solution.
Actually most people will tell you that using reflection is not the best idea. Sometimes it's the only option but you should avoid it.
Maybe this would be a solution for you:
Since actors are really cheap you can create all of them upfront. How many of them do you have?
Now the query could return you a path to the actor, not the class. Select it with actorSelection and send messages to it.
If your actors does a long running job you can use a router or if you want to a Proxy Actor that will spawn other actors as needed. Other option is to create futures from a single actor.
It really depends on the case, because you may need to create multiple execution context's not to starve any of the actors (of futures).
Related
I am referring to api
Patters.ask(actor, msg, duration);
here is sample
class MyActor extends AbstractBehavior{
interface Command{}
interface SomeMessage implements Command{ INSTANCE}
public Reveive<Comamnd> receive(){
return newReceiveBuilder().onMessage(SomeMessage.class, this::someMessage).build();
}
private Behavior<Command> someMessage(SomeMessage ref){
System.out.println("Dru lalal");
}
}
ActorRef<MyActor.Command> myActor = ...;
Future<Object> future = Patterns.ask(myActor, SomeMessage.INSTANCE, Duration.ofMillis(10000));
What is gone be object ?
Obviously this won't compile. Some part of picture is missing, but javadoc doesn't state what.
Call "Patterns.ask" suppose to return future with object, those value is provided by actor as business logic. But there is not business logic in actor. I assume there is suppose to be some kind of convention or mapping for method that returns value with what "Patters.ask" triggers.
Same is true about back logic. I will not able to define receiver since it expect to return Receiver not SomeObject and thus, api want't let me bind result to some message. Only thing I can do is manually pass ComputableFuture
ComputableFuture<MyOBject> future = new ComputableFuture<>();
myActor.tell(new Message(future));
private Behavior<Command> someMessage(Message message){
var result = compute();
message.future.comlete(result);
}
And here we go, I have manually manage everything, also issues with passing non serializable message, lifecycle of objects and so on.
Wrong objects is used. Instead of "AskPattern.ask" for new java typed dsl, I used classic "Patterns.ask".
Most of times new api objects has same object name but located in different package. I used to check only package name becouse while playing with in IDE they always next to each other since name is the same. I got used to ignore the classic "com.akka" objects while playing with api.
And here I got into trap, object name is different and not placed in IDE next to "classic" package object.
I'm currently looking at making two different persistent actors communicate with each other. In particular:
Given an Actor A exists
When an Actor B is spawned
Then Actor B must have a reference to Actor A
And Actor B must be able to continuously send messages to Actor A even after relocation
I know that there are two options:
// With an EntityRef
val counterOne: EntityRef[Counter.Command] = sharding.entityRefFor(TypeKey, "counter-1")
counterOne ! Counter.Increment
// Entity id is specified via an `ShardingEnvelope`
shardRegion ! ShardingEnvelope("counter-1", Counter.Increment)
The second option seems like a nice way to go since I'll be delegating the resolution of the actual reference to the entity to Akka. I'll probably just need to pass some wrapper function to my Actor on instantiation. For example
val shardRegionA: ActorRef[ShardingEnvelope[Counter.Command]] =
sharding.init(Entity(TypeA)(createBehavior = entityContext => A()))
def delegate_A(id,message) = {
shardRegionA ! ShardingEnvelope(id,message)
}
val shardRegionB: ActorRef[ShardingEnvelope[Counter.Command]] =
sharding.init(Entity(TypeB)(createBehavior = entityContext => B(delegate_A)))
--------
object B {
def apply(delegate) = {
...somewhere inside the state...
delegate("some_id_of_A", Message("Hello"))
...somewhere inside the state...
}
}
But, I'd also like to understand whether the first option is simpler because the EntityRef might be safely persistable in the state/events.
object B {
def apply(entityRefA : EntityRef[A]) = {
EventSourcedBehavior[...](
emptyState = State(entityRefA)
)
}
}
Anyone have any insights on this?
EntityRef isn't safely persistable in state/events (barring some very fragile reflection-based serialization), since it doesn't expose the information which would allow a deserializer to rebuild an equivalent EntityRef. The default Jackson serialization also does not usefully deserialize EntityRefs.
There's a PR up as of the time of this answer to allow the "definitional" components of an EntityRef to be extracted for serialization (e.g. so EntityRef[Employee.Command] could be JSON serialized as { "entityId": "123456789", "typeKey": "EMPLOYEE" }. That PR would still require custom serialization for any messages, persisted events, or state (if snapshotting) which contain EntityRefs, but at least it would then be possible to include EntityRefs in such objects.
Until that time, you shouldn't put EntityRefs into messages, events, or snapshottable state: instead you basically have to put the IDs into those objects and send messages wrapped in ShardingEnvelopes to the shard region actor (which is what EntityRef.tell does anyway). In some cases, it might be reasonable to maintain a mapping of entity IDs to EntityRefs in a non-persistent child actor and send messages to EntityRefs via that child actor, or if willing to block or really contort your protocol, do asks to that child to resolve EntityRefs for you.
EDIT to note that as of Akka 2.6.13, it's possible to implement a custom serializer to handle EntityRefs; the Jackson serializers at this point do not support EntityRef. A means of resolving a type key and entity ID into an EntityRef would have to be injected into the serializer.
I started to play around with caf and using it to represent a graph.
Since this graph is unidirected I can create the actors that I need and link them accordingly, but now I want to find a specific actor identified by it's name.
class node_actor : public event_based_actor{
std::string m_name;
...
};
int main(){
auto entry_actor = spawn<node_actor>();
// node_actor will spawn other actors with names
// like this: node_actor will spawn node1
// node1 will spwan node2
// node2 will spwan node3 and so on
// now I want to send a message to node2
scoped_actor self;
self->send(n2, 42});
...
}
What would be the best way to find n2?
Can this be handled by a group, broadcasting a message? E.g like this:
{
auto g = group::get("local", "Node events");
auto entry_actor = spawn_in_group<node_actor>(g);
// change all nodes to call spawn_in_group
scoped_actor self;
self->send(g, name, 42})
}
If so wouldn't that be much overhead, because all nodes must be checked if they match the message?
Or are there other ways that I did not find in the docs yet?
I think the group is a good idea because it also works distributed. You can have a better scalability by announcing each spawned actor to the group instead of broadcasting the messages.
Each actor that needs a name <-> actor mapping would then subscribe to the group (before you actually spawn your nodes). Whenever you spawn a new node, you send its name along with its handle to the group and each listener adds this mapping to its local state (or ignores the message if it is only interested in a few selected names).
In case you have a lot of actors that need the name mapping and you don't want to replicate the mapping many times, you could also use a single actor instead of a group that stores a map and can be queried by others whenever they need to resolve a name.
Your third option is to use the actor registry, but this will only work locally and only if you can use atom names. If this matches your use case, then you can register new actors via detail::singletons::get_actor_registry()->put_named(key, value); and retrieve them via detail::singletons::get_actor_registry()->get_named(key);. I usually don't recommend features from the detail namespace, but this particular feature will make its way to the public API in 0.15. By the way, you can create an atom_value dynamically, but you are of course limited to 10 characters and are only allowed to use alphanumeric characters.
Hope that helps.
I'm working on a Sinatra-JRuby application and handling a situation where concurrent API calls are coming to the API layer and then subsequently handled by service and adapter layer. I'm having a GlobalService module to share the common information, so that I can access this common information from any other layer. This works just fine until concurrent calls come and reset the value of thw previous API. Though I've implemented Mutex to address this problem, but I've got a gut feeling that this is not the right approach to the problem. Here is what I've implemented:
require 'thread'
module GlobalService
##mutex = Mutex.new
def self.set_header(auth_subject, transaction_id)
##mutex.synchronize {
#auth_subject = auth_subject
#transaction_id = transaction_id
}
end
def self.get_header
##mutex.synchronize {
return #auth_subject, #transaction_id
}
end
end
Please let me know of any alternative solution to address this problem.
Sharing memory will never really be thread safe, so you might do well to use a message passing strategy. My preference for this would be to create actors and have them communicate about state change. Check out Concurrent Ruby's actors http://ruby-concurrency.github.io/concurrent-ruby/Concurrent/Actor.html.
You could do something like
require 'concurrent'
class GlobalService < Concurrent::Actor::Context
def initialize(auth_subject, transaction_id)
#auth_subject = auth_subject
#transaction_id = transaction_id
end
def on_message(message)
#some logic
#auth_subject = message.auth_subject
#transaction_id = message.transaction_id
end
end
service = GlobalService.spawn(:first, "header...", id)
etc...
I've used this strategy in the past and it has worked out fairly well. You may also want to ask for help over at https://gitter.im/ruby-concurrency/concurrent-ruby Pitrch is usually very helpful!
I'm coding a long-running, multi-threaded server in C++. It receives requests on a socket, does database lookups and returns responses on a socket.
The server reads various run information from a configuration file, including database connectivity parameters. I have to use a database abstraction class from the company's code library. I don't want to wait until trying to do the DB search to lazy instantiate the DB connection (due to not shown complexity and the need for error exit at startup if DB connection cannot be made).
My problem is how to get the database connection information down into the search class without doing any number of "ugly" or bad OOP things that would technically work. I want to learn how to do this right way.
Is there a good design pattern for doing this? Should I be using the "Parameterize from Above" pattern? Am I missing some simpler Composition pattern?
// Read config file.
// Open DB connection using config values.
Server::process_request(string request, string response) {
try {
Process process(request);
if (process.do_parse(response)) {
return REQ_OK;
} else {
// handle error
}
} catch (..,) {
// handle exceptions
}
}
class Process : public GenericRequest {
public:
Process(string *input) : generic_process(input) {};
bool do_parse(string &output);
}
bool Process::do_parse(string &output) {
// Parse the input request.
Search search; // database search object
search.init( search parameters from parsing above );
output = format_response(search.get_results());
}
class Search {
// must use the Database library connection handle.
}
How do I get the DB connection from the Server class at top into the Search class instance at the bottom of the pseudo-code above?
It seems that the problem you are trying to solve is one of objects dependency, and is well solved using dependency injection.
Your class Process requires an instance of Search, which must be configured somehow. Instead of having instances of Process allocating their own Search instance, it would be easier to have them receive a ready made one at construction time. The Process class won't have to know about the Search configuration details, and thus an unecessary dependency is avoided.
But then the problem cascades up to whichever object must create a Process, because now this one has to know that configuration detail! In your situation, it is not really a problem, since the Server class is the one creating Process instances, and it happens to know the configuration details for Search.
However, a better solution is to implement a specialized class - for instance DBService, which will encapsulate the DB details acquired from the configuration step, and provide a method to get ready made Search instances. With this setup, no other objects will depend on the Search class for its construction and configuration. As an added benefit, you can easily implement and inject a DBService mockup object which will help you build test cases.
class DBSearch {
/* implement/extends the Search interface/class wrt DB */
};
class DBService {
/* constructor reads up configuration details somehow: command line, file */
Search *newSearch(){
return new DBSearch(config); // search object specialized on db
}
};
The code above somewhat illustrates the solution. Note that the newSearch method is not constrained to build only a Search instance, but may build any object specializing that class (as for example the class DBSearch above). The dependency is there almost removed from Process, which now only needs to know about the interface of Search it really manipulates.
The central element of good OOP design highlighted here is reducing coupling between objects to reduce the amount of work needed when modifying or enhancing parts of the application,
Please look up for dependency injection on SO for more information on that OOP design pattern.