I'm converting a large project (Spring boot, GraphQL server) to coroutines.
Since this is a large project, I'm not converting it all at once and need to work in parallel with ThreadLocal and CoroutineContext for interop.
We currently have a class that wraps ThreadLocal manipulation, my plan is to create an equivalent for CoroutineContext and to use ThreadContextElement as well as asContextElement to ensure the non-coroutine and the coroutine parts of my code interop properly.
Questions:
Are there better alternatives to implement such interop?
Are there good examples of such a mix I can use as good reference?
Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of?
Thanks!
Related
Short Question:
Can we consider NestJS interceptors as a run-time Weaver?
More:
In AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming), we try to handle cross-cutting concerns (like logging, security, etc) in a different way (decoupled from the main aspects of our application) with the help of Weaver. The weaver tries to merge the core concerns with cross-cutting concerns either in compile time or run time. One example in the Java world is: AspectJ
I was wondering what we can use in nodejs or more specifically in NestJS? It seems interceptors provide a similar concept. Or maybe there is a specific tool for that?
Kotlin vs Node JS for REST Api's
I couldn't find any proper explanation regarding the differences b/w Kotlin and Node JS for REST APIs
Which is better in performance wise?
Let me set the context. Its Kotlin/JVM vs JS/Node.js. We cannot blindly say that this language is better. In general Kotlin is supposed to be faster since it compiled language compared to JS which is interpreted language.
Irrespective of the language used, we will discuss on the API architecture. Serving the APIs can be implemented in either blocking or non-blocking way (I am not going to explain about what it is). Traditionally before a few of years Java/Kotlin with Spring have been using the blocking architecture which delivered performance X. On a contrary, Node.js is based on non-blocking architecture which gave us better performance than the blocking architecture and architecture style is the only reason why Node.js performed better. Later Spring released a newer version of the framework to support non-blocking architecture. The non-blocking style is called as Reactive programming/Spring Webflux.
So now both of the languages support non-blocking architecture. In terms of raw language performance, Kotlin will be better since its compiled language. Also in theory interpreted languages are supposed to be slower. But we cannot say which is better without any testing.
Personally I am fan of Java/Spring because of OOPS and later at one point I started using TS/Node.js. TS eliminates most of the runtime issues with its type checking. But still we cannot compare it with the type system available in Java/Kotlin. As a language I feel Java/Kotlin is superior and one thing I like most in JavaScript is handling objects/JSON. Checkout "Kotlin for JavaScript" as well which lets you write in Kotlin and transpile to JS. Ignore this "Kotlin for JavaScript" feature, I am planning to try Kotlin/Spring in non-blocking architecture for my future projects. If you have usecases with WebSockets, I think Node.js will perform better and I am not sure If there are any libraries in Java/Kotlin since I havn't explored it.
One disadvantage in non-blocking style is that I need to pass the login context object to almost all the methods in the project. In blocking architecture we will add the login context information in thread local so that we can access it anywhere until the request is completed.
I am sure that I did not answer your question completely. But I hope that the information what I have give is useful.
Correct me If I am wrong in any of the aspects.
I'm writing a .NET 4.0 library that should be efficient and simple to use.
The library is used by referencing it and using its different classes.
Should I use .NET 4.0 Tasks tot make things more efficient internally? I fear that it might make the usage of the library more complex and limited since the users might want to decide for themselves when and where to use tasks and threads.
If your answer depends on the kind of library, here is more information:
The library is Pcap.Net, which is a wrapper for WinPcap and includes a packet interpretation framework.
It only is an issue when the user can 'see' the threading, ie you give out access to data that could be accessed (by you) on another Thread. Probably not a good idea.
But when the parallel processing stays completely inside your application then there is very little chance your users would object.
Should? Dunno. How about giving people an option by providing extension methods that use tasks against the library and push that out in a separate DLL? If you want to use tasks, reference the extension library and go crazy. Otherwise, stick with the core dll.
I believe there are many projects that follow this pattern with Linq. They provide their core library and a separate .Linq.DLL which has extension methods...
I have a Java\Spring\Hibernate application - complete with domain classes which are basically Hibernate POJOs
There is a piece of functionality that I think can be written well in Grails.
I wish to reuse the domain classes that I have created in the main Java app
What is the best way to do so ?
Should I write new domain classes extending the Java classes ? this sounds tacky
Or Can I 'generate' controllers off the Java domain classes ?
What are the best practices around reusing Java domain objects in Grails\Groovy
I am sure there must be others writing some pieces in grails\groovy
If you know about a tutorial which talks about such an integration- that would be awesome !!!
PS: I am quite a newbie in grails-groovy so may be missing the obvious. Thanks !!!
Knowing just how well Groovy and Grails excel at integrating with existing Java code, I think I might be a bit more optimistic than Michael about your options.
First thing is that you're already using Spring and Hibernate, and since your domain classes are already POJOs they should be easy to integrate with. Any Spring beans you might have can be specified in an XML file as usual (in grails-app/conf/spring/resources.xml) or much more simply using the Spring bean builder feature of Grails. They can then be accessed by name in any controller, view, service, etc. and worked with as usual.
Here are the options, as I see them, for integrating your domain classes and database schema:
Bypass GORM and load/save your domain objects exactly as you're already doing.
Grails doesn't force you to use GORM, so this should be quite straightforward: create a .jar of your Java code (if you haven't already) and drop it into the Grails app's lib directory. If your Java project is Mavenized, it's even easier: Grails 1.1 works with Maven, so you can create a pom.xml for your Grails app and add your Java project as a dependency as you would in any other (Java) project.
Either way you'll be able to import your classes (and any supporting classes) and proceed as usual. Because of Groovy's tight integration with Java, you'll be able to create objects, load them from the database, modify them, save them, validate them etc. exactly as you would in your Java project. You won't get all the conveniences of GORM this way, but you would have the advantage of working with your objects in a way that already makes sense to you (except maybe with a bit less code thanks to Groovy). You could always try this option first to get something working, then consider one of the other options later if it seems to make sense at that time.
One tip if you do try this option: abstract the actual persistence code into a Grails service (StorageService perhaps) and have your controllers call methods on it rather than handling persistence directly. This way you could replace that service with something else down the road if needed, and as long as you maintain the same interface your controllers won't be affected.
Create new Grails domain classes as subclasses of your existing Java classes.
This could be pretty straightforward if your classes are already written as proper beans, i.e. with getter/setter methods for all their properties. Grails will see these inherited properties as it would if they were written in the simpler Groovy style. You'll be able to specify how to validate each property, using either simple validation checks (not null, not blank, etc.) or with closures that do more complicated things, perhaps calling existing methods in their POJO superclasses.
You'll almost certainly need to tweak the mappings via the GORM mapping DSL to fit the realities of your existing database schema. Relationships would be where it might get tricky. For example, you might have some other solution where GORM expects a join table, though there may even be a way to work around differences such as these. I'd suggest learning as much as you can about GORM and its mapping DSL and then experiment with a few of your classes to see if this is a viable option.
Have Grails use your existing POJOs and Hibernate mappings directly.
I haven't tried this myself, but according to Grails's Hibernate Integration page this is supposed to be possible: "Grails also allows you to write your domain model in Java or re-use an existing domain model that has been mapped using Hibernate. All you have to do is place the necessary 'hibernate.cfg.xml' file and corresponding mappings files in the '%PROJECT_HOME%/grails-app/conf/hibernate' directory. You will still be able to call all of the dynamic persistent and query methods allowed in GORM!"
Googling "gorm legacy" turns up a number of helpful discussions and examples, for example this blog post by Glen Smith (co-author of the soon-to-be-released Grails in Action) where he shows a Hibernate mapping file used to integrate with "the legacy DB from Hell". Grails in Action has a chapter titled "Advanced GORM Kungfu" which promises a detailed discussion of this topic. I have a pre-release PDF of the book, and while I haven't gotten to that chapter yet, what I've read so far is very good, and the book covers many topics that aren't adequately discussed in other Grails books.
Sorry I can't offer any personal experience on this last option, but it does sound doable (and quite promising). Whichever option you choose, let us know how it turns out!
Do you really want/need to use Grails rather than just Groovy?
Grails really isn't something you can use to add a part to an existing web app. The whole "convention over configuration" approach means that you pretty much have to play by Grails' rules, otherwise there is no point in using it. And one of those rules is that domain objects are Groovy classes that are heavily "enhanced" by the Grails runtime.
It might be possible to have them extend existing Java classes, but I wouldn't bet on it - and all the Spring and Hibernate parts of your existing app would have to be discarded, or at least you'd have to spend a lot of effort to make them work in Grails. You'll be fighting the framework rather than profiting from it.
IMO you have two options:
Rewrite your app from scratch in Grails while reusing as much of the existing code as possible.
Keep your app as it is and add new stuff in Groovy, without using Grails.
The latter is probably better in your situation. Grails is meant to create new web apps very quickly, that's where it shines. Adding stuff to an existing app just isn't what it was made for.
EDIT:
Concerning the clarification in the comments: if you're planning to write basically a data entry/maintenance frontend for data used by another app and have the DB as the only communication channel between them, that might actually work quite well with Grails; it can certainly be configured to use an existing DB schema rather than creating its own from the domain classes (though the latter is less work).
This post provides some suggestions for using grails for wrapping existing Java classes in a web framework.
I just started getting into BizTalk at work and would love to keep using everything I've learned about DDD, TDD, etc. Is this even possible or am I always going to have to use the Visio like editors when creating things like pipelines and orchestrations?
You can certainly apply a lot of the concepts of TDD and DDD to BizTalk development.
You can design and develop around the concept of domain objects (although in BizTalk and integration development I often find interface objects or contract first design to be a more useful way of thinking - what messages get passed around at my interfaces). And you can also follow the 'Build the simplest possible thing that will work' and 'only build things that make tests pass' philosophies of TDD.
However, your question sounds like you are asking more about the code-centric sides of these design and development approaches.
Am I right that you would like to be able to follow the test driven development approach of first writing a unti test that exercises a requirement and fails, then writing a method that fulfils the requirement and causes the test to pass - all within a traditional programing language like C#?
For that, unfortunately, the answer is no. The majority of BizTalk artifacts (pipelines, maps, orchestrations...) can only really be built using the Visual Studio BizTalk plugins. There are ways of viewing the underlying c# code, but one would never want to try and directly develop this code.
There are two tools BizUnit and BizUnit Extensions that give some ability to control the execution of BizTalk applications and test them but this really only gets you to the point of performing more controled and more test driven integration tests.
The shapes that you drag onto the Orchestration design surface will largely just do their thing as one opaque unit of execution. And Orchestrations, pipelines, maps etc... all these things are largely intended to be executed (and tested) within an entire BizTalk solution.
Good design practices (taking pointers from approaches like TDD) will lead to breaking BizTalk solutions into smaller, more modular and testable chunks, and are there are ways of testing things like pipelines in isolation.
But the detailed specifics of TDD and DDD in code sadly don't translate.
For some related discussion that may be useful see this question:
Mocking WebService consumed by a Biztalk Request-Response port
If you often make use of pipelines and custom pipeline components in BizTalk, you might find my own PipelineTesting library useful. It allows you to use NUnit (or whatever other testing framework you prefer) to create automated tests for complete pipelines, specific pipeline components or even schemas (such as flat file schemas).
It's pretty useful if you use this kind of functionality, if I may say so myself (I make heavy use of it on my own projects).
You can find an introduction to the library here, and the full code on github. There's also some more detailed documentation on its wiki.
I agree with the comments by CKarras. Many people have cited that as their reason for not liking the BizUnit framework. But take a look at BizUnit 3.0. It has an object model that allows you to write the entire test step in C#/VB instead of XML. BizUnitExtensions is being upgraded to the new object model as well.
The advantages of the XML based system is that it is easier to generate test steps and there is no need to recompile when you update the steps. In my own Extensions library, I found the XmlPokeStep (inspired by NAnt) to be very useful. My team could update test step xml on the fly. For example, lets say we had to call a webservice that created a customer record and then checked a database for that same record. Now if the webservice returned the ID (dynamically generated), we could update the test step for the next step on the fly (not in the same xml file of course) and then use that to check the database.
From a coding perspective, the intellisense should be addressed now in BizUnit 3.0. The lack of an XSD did make things difficult in the past. I'm hoping to get an XSD out that will aid in the intellisense. There were some snippets as well for an old version of BizUnit but those havent been updated, maybe if theres time I'll give that a go.
But coming back to the TDD issue, if you take some of the intent behind TDD - the specification or behavior driven element, then you can apply it to some extent to Biztalk development as well because BizTalk is based heavily on contract driven development. So you can specify your interfaces first and create stub orchestrations etc to handle them and then build out the core. You could write the BizUnit tests at that time. I wish there were some tools that could automate this process but right now there arent.
Using frameworks such as the ESB guidance can also help give you a base platform to work off so you can implement the major use cases through your system iteratively.
Just a few thoughts. Hope this helps. I think its worth blogging about more extensively.
This is a good topic to discuss.Do ping me if you have any questions or we can always discuss more over here.
Rgds
Benjy
You could use BizUnit to create and reuse generic test cases both in code and excel(for functional scenarios)
http://www.codeplex.com/bizunit
BizTalk Server 2009 is expected to have more IDE integrated testability.
Cheers
Hemil.
BizUnit is really a pain to use because all the tests are written in XML instead of a programming language.
In our projects, we have "ported" parts of BizUnit to a plain old C# test framework. This allows us to use BizUnit's library of steps directly in C# NUnit/MSTest code. This makes tests that are easier to write (using VS Intellisense), more flexible, and most important, easier to debug in case of a test failure. The main drawback of this approach is that we have forked from the main BizUnit source.
Another interesting option I would consider for future projects is BooUnit, which is a Boo wrapper on top of BizUnit. It has advantages similar to our BizUnit "port", but also has the advantage of still using BizUnit instead of forking from it.