Here is the following code :
start :: Settings -> IO ()
start settings # Settings {healthCheckLoggerId} = do
waitTillHealthy
healthCheckLoggerId
settings
Server.getDependencies
Server.healthCheck
Server.getDependencies
settings
(runServerOnWarp)
where
runServerOnWarp :: Server.Dependencies -> IO()
runServerOnWarp dependencies # Server.Dependencies {logger,port} = do
run port $ application
(proxy :: Proxy GSDMonitoringStreamingApi)
monitoringServer
dependencies
monitoringServer :: ServantServer GSDMonitoringStreamingApi Server.Dependencies
monitoringServer dependencies = streamCommand dependencies
where
streamCommandResponse :: Server.Dependencies ->
WorkspaceId ->
Handler (PipeStream (Either StreamIssue (Persisted CommandResponse)))
streamCommandResponse Server.Dependencies {eventStoreClientDependencies} =
return . toPipes . GsdMonitoring.streamCommandResponse eventStoreClientDependencies
Explanation of the issue :
the function Server.getDependencies is wrapping a bracket pattern that get a connection to a database (the client of that database recommend using one connection for all not one for each request).
First I'm running a healthCheck which is blocking till everything is fine. Each time I'm testing the health check of a dependency each time I'm acquiring a new connection. Once the environnement is healthy, I'm getting again the Server.Dependencies (db connection), and I'm running the server. Everything running into runServerOnWarp is executed in the -- ^ computation to run in-between section from
bracket
:: IO a -- ^ computation to run first (\"acquire resource\")
-> (a -> IO b) -- ^ computation to run last (\"release resource\")
-> (a -> IO c) -- ^ computation to run in-between
-> IO c -- returns the value from the in-between computation
so all the requests are executed into that section and get the same connection, so far so good... Because that section :
run port $ application
(proxy :: Proxy GSDMonitoringStreamingApi)
monitoringServer dependencies
is never ending, we are always staying in the computation to run in-between (except when I kill the app...)
Now the issue I have is when the connection get closed.... all my request will return Left StreamIssue which is fine but I have to get a new connection from Server.getDependencies. I don't know how to do it properly :-( Hacks that I have in mind but I don't like are :
1) Having one connection for one request
2) Raising an exception when the request stream a Left streamIssue, that somehow restart the server to get new dependencies... The issue is that the client of the server never get a Left value and the communication between the 2 is violently closed because the server is restarted...
Do you have a cleaner way in mind ?
P.S : I hope the details are enough to understand the issue, don't hesitate for more information if necessary...
If losing the database connection is rare, letting the server crash, and some supervisory process restart it, works quite well.
If losing the DB connection is common enough that you can't tolerate client timeouts from restarting the server, you can add reconnect logic to whatever code uses the DB connection. I usually use resource-pool for this. I believe you can create the "pool" with only one resource, if that fits your database.
Usually getting a DB connection is fast, so I'm guessing it's not worth extra effort to route incoming requests elsewhere. withResource in resource-pool blocks until a resource is ready, so active requests can easily wait while you reconnect.
Related
I have an API written using the Servant library which connects to a postgres db. The connection string for my db is stored in a configuration file. Everytime I make a request to any endpoint that interacts with the db I have to read the file to get the connection string, this is what im trying to avoid.
Step by step example of what im trying to achieve:
Application starts up.
Contents of the config file are read and bound to some type/object.
I make a request to my endpoint to create an entry in the db.
I read the connection string from the type/object that I bound it to and NOT the config file.
Every subsequent request for the lifetime of the application does not have to read the config file everytime it wants to interact with the database.
Doing this in something like java/c# you would just bind the contents of a file to some POCO which would be added to your DI container as a singleton so it can be referenced anywhere in your application and persist between each api request. If I have 100 requests that ineract with the db, none of those 100 requests would need to read config file to get the connection string as it was already loaded into memory when the app started.
I have thought about using the cache package, but is there an easier way to do something like this without a third party package?
Let's begin with this trivial Servant server:
import Servant
import Servant.Server
type FooAPI = Get '[JSON] Int
fooServer :: Server FooAPI
fooServer = pure 1
Suppose we don't want to hardcode that 1. We could turn fooServer into a function like
makeFooServer :: Int -> Server FooAPI
makeFooServer n = pure n
Then, in main, we could read the n from a file then call makeFooServer to construct the server. Something similar could be done for your database connection.
There's another approach that might be sometimes preferrable. Servant lets you define servers whose handlers live in a monad different from Handler, and then transform them into regular servers (tutorial).
We can write a server in which the handler monad is a ReaderT holding the configuration:
import Control.Monad.Trans.Reader
type RHandler env = ReaderT env Handler
fooServer' :: ServerT FooAPI (RHandler Int)
fooServer' = do
n <- ask
pure n
Where ServerT is a more general form of Server that lets you specify the handler monad in an extra type argument.
Then, we use the hoistServer function to supply the initial environment and go back to a regular server:
-- "Server FooAPI" is the same as "ServerT FooAPI Handler"
-- so the transformation we need is simply to run the `ReaderT`
-- by supplying an environment.
backToNormalServer :: Int -> Server FooAPI
backToNormalServer n = hoistServer (Proxy #FooAPI) (flip runReaderT n) fooServer'
The ServerT FooAPI (RHandler Int) approach has the advantage that you still have a server value that you can directly manipulate and pass around, instead of it being the result of a function.
Also, for some advanced use cases, the environment might reflect information derived from the structure of each endpoint.
There are some database queries I want to run periodically, and according to its state, send notifications to users email and change the state of their accounts. Can I do it within Yesod itself?
I moved from Yesod's issue.
Run Handler code at a specific time within yesod · Issue #1529 · yesodweb/yesod
I do not know your complete code.
So, this is proposal.
makeApplication :: App -> IO Application
makeApplication foundation = do
unsafeHandler foundation $
forkHandler (\_ -> catchError) $ forever $ do -- catchError do not exist
waitUntil10AM -- waitUntil10AM do not exist
getCheckupR
logWare <- makeLogWare foundation
-- Create the WAI application and apply middlewares
appPlain <- toWaiAppPlain foundation
return $ logWare $ (acceptOverride . autohead . gzip def) appPlain
This code point that use unsafeHandler and forkHandler.
waitUntil10AM
I do not know your timezone, environment, database structure etc, so I want you to write the details yourself.
For example, if you put threadDelay in forever and check it once every ten minutes, put the date on which you sent the mail already in the database and call it if you do not send it and it exceeds 10AM.
catchError
Please decide what kind of processing should be done at the time of error.
I would like to handle errors in a way that it would never stop
You can name the function to be passed inside forkHandler and call it again on error.
Simon Marlow gave a High performance concurrency talk at Haskell eXchange 2012. Due to time constraints, he skipped the section on a simple concurrent chat server. Curious about the elided content, a web search found similar slides on server applications and an implementation on GitHub.
Slide 33 reads
Back to talk…
talk :: Server -> Handle -> IO ()
talk server#Server{..} handle = do
hSetNewlineMode handle universalNewlineMode
hSetBuffering handle LineBuffering
readName
where
readName = do
hPutStrLn handle "What is your name?"
name <- hGetLine handle
m <- checkAddClient server name handle
case m of
Nothing -> do
hPrintf handle "The name %s is in use" name
readName
Just client -> do
runClient server client
`finally` removeClient server name
Strictly speaking we should plug the hole between checkAddClient and finally (see the notes…)
Earlier, slide 3 mentions “Chapter 14 in the notes,” which I assume refers to his upcoming book. What is the synchronization crack between checkAddClient and finally, and how do we plug it?
The aforementioned implementation uses mask from Control.Exception. If this is the fix, what is a scenario in which an ill-timed exception spoils the party?
...
readName = do
hPutStrLn handle "What is your name?"
name <- hGetLine handle
if null name
then readName
else mask $ \restore -> do
ok <- checkAddClient server name handle
case ok of
Nothing -> restore $ do
hPrintf handle
"The name %s is in use, please choose another\n" name
readName
Just client ->
restore (runClient server client)
`finally` removeClient server name
You want to make sure that every successful checkAddClient is paired with a removeClient. The finally statement at the bottom only guarantees that removeClient is run if the runClient action begins.
However, there is a brief window in between the end of checkAddClient and the beginning of runClient where that code could receive an asynchronous exception. If it did, finally would not get a chance to register the removeClient command. This is the synchronization crack that Simon is referring to.
The solution is to mask asynchronous exceptions by default and only allow them to show up in certain places (i.e. the actions wrapped by restore). This seals up the aforementioned crack.
What if checkAddClient did this:
checkAddClient server name handle = do
addClient server name handle
return undefined
The exception would not be triggered until the case evaluated its argument, and removeClient would never get called.
But, honestly, I don't understand asynchronous exceptions so this is a wild guess at an example.
Say, I have simple app which uses HDBC to interact with a database. It could be a snap app or a command line app. I'd like a generic view on this - not snap or anything specific.
A good example would be the the chapter 22 from "Real World Haskell".
So I would hide all my SQL related functions like connect, saveArticle, getArticle etc. in a separate DB.hs file. All the DB functions would take a connection handle as an argument.
Now, how would I initiate the connection once and put it in a state so that all those DB functions just use it without initiating connection individually?
Is this possible? Maybe I am thinking wrong or with OO concepts in mind but ... I would like to "initialize" my connection (like you would initialize an object in OO).
I don't want every DB function to create and close new connection.
Do I have to create a pool and pass the pool to the functions as argument instead of connection handle? What is the simplest example of doing it?
Whether it is a pool or connection handle, how do I put it in a state so my functions just grab it when needed and don't repetitively "open" and "close" all the time? If yes, how is it done correctly?
Do I need to create a pool and put it in a state so functions just query the pool for connections from global state? Again, example would be really appreciated.
Thanks.
There is no such thing as module state or application state, so you have to find an other strategy. I much recommend a reader monad, with the environment holding the db connection. That will cost you a few returns in some functions, but will be very solid.
Below is a simple pseudo-haskell example.
type AppState = AppState { dbcon :: DatabaseConnection }
type App = ReaderT AppState IO
main = do
db <- makeNewDbConnection
runReaderT getDbTableCount $ AppState db
getDbTableCount :: App Integer
getDbTableCount = do
(count:_) <- runDb "select count(*) from table;"
return $ read count
runDb :: String -> App [String]
runDb req = do
con <- asks dbcon
return $ dbQuery con req
You may want to take a look at bos' resource-pool library.
I got an exception (used Prelude.head on an empty list) that made all the http-request after that return a 502/505 exception (and the happstack app prints "HTTP request failed with: send resource vanished (Broken pipe)" in stdout).
My question is this: What is the best practice for controlling exceptions in Happstack? Should I use something else than simpleHTTP or simply use Control.Exception.catch on the controller function?
It currently looks similar to the example in the Crash Course:
main :: IO ()
main = do
hSetEncoding stdout utf8
bracket (startSystemState (Proxy :: Proxy AppState)) createCheckpointAndShutdown $
\_control ->
simpleHTTP nullConf { port = 1729 } $ do
_ <- liftIO today
decodeBody policy
controller
where
createCheckpointAndShutdown control = do
createCheckpoint control
shutdownSystem control
What do you mean by, "the server went down"?
If you are handling a Request and do head [], that should only kill the thread that is handling that particular request. The server itself should continue running and processing other requests.
If you have found a way to kill the whole server, that is a bug and bug report / test case would be highly appreciated.
If only the current thread is being killed, and you want to catch that exception, then I think you need to use MonadPeelIO,
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/monad-peel/0.1/doc/html/Control-Monad-IO-Peel.html
Someone has submitted a patch for that, but it has not been reviewed/merged yet.