I've been searching for a function that takes an object of type Lock
and runs a block of code with that lock taking care of locking and also unlocking.
I'd implement it as follows:
fun <T : Lock> T.runLocked(block: () -> Unit) {
lock()
try {
block()
} finally {
unlock()
}
}
Used like this:
val l = ReentrantLock()
l.runLocked {
println(l.isLocked)
}
println(l.isLocked)
//true
//false
Anything available like this? I could only find the synchronized function which cannot be used like this.
You are looking for withLock, which has the exact implementation you've written yourself, except it has a generic parameter for the result of the block instead of the receiver type.
You can find other concurrency related methods of the standard library here, in the kotlin.concurrent package.
Related
I'm playing around with reactive flows using RxJava2, Micronaut and Cassandra. I'm new to rxjava and not sure what is the correct way to return a of List Person in the best async manner?
data is coming from a Cassandra Dao interface
public interface PersonDAO {
#Query("SELECT * FROM cass_drop.person;")
CompletionStage<MappedAsyncPagingIterable<Person>> getAll();
}
that gets injected into a micronaut controller
return Single.just(personDAO.getAll().toCompletableFuture().get().currentPage())
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.map(people -> HttpResponse.ok(people));
OR
return Single.just(HttpResponse.ok())
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io())
.map(it -> it.body(personDAO.getAll().toCompletableFuture().get().currentPage()));
OR switch to RxJava3
return Single.fromCompletionStage(personDAO.getAll())
.map(page -> HttpResponse.ok(page.currentPage()))
.onErrorReturn(throwable -> HttpResponse.ok(Collections.emptyList()));
Not a pro of RxJava nor Cassandra :
In your first and second example, you are blocking the thread executing the CompletionStage with get, even if you are doing it in the IO thread, I would not recommand doing so.
You are also using a Single wich can emit, only one value, or an error. Since you want to return a List, I would sugest to go for at least an Observable.
Third point, the result from Cassandra is paginated, I don't know if it's intentionnaly but you list only the first page, and miss the others.
I would try a solution like the one below, I kept using the IO thread (the operation may be costly in IO) and I iterate over the pages Cassandra fetch :
/* the main method of your controller */
#Get()
public Observable<Person> listPersons() {
return next(personDAO.getAll()).subscribeOn(Schedulers.io());
}
private Observable<Person> next(CompletionStage<MappedAsyncPagingIterable<Person>> pageStage) {
return Single.fromFuture(pageStage.toCompletableFuture())
.flatMapObservable(personsPage -> {
var o = Observable.fromIterable(personsPage.currentPage());
if (!personsPage.hasMorePages()) {
return o;
}
return o.concatWith(next(personsPage.fetchNextPage()));
});
}
If you ever plan to use reactor instead of RxJava, then you can give cassandra-java-driver-reactive-mapper a try.
The syntax is fairly simple and works in compile-time only.
I'm exploring Kotlin Native and have a program with a bunch of Workers doing concurrent stuff
(running on Windows, but this is a general question).
Now, I wanted to add simple logging. A component that simply logs strings by appending them as new lines to a file that is kept open in 'append' mode.
(Ideally, I'd just have a "global" function...
fun log(text:String) {...} ]
...that I would be able to call from anywhere, including from "inside" other workers and that would just work. The implication here is that it's not trivial to do this because of Kotlin Native's rules regarding passing objects between threads (TLDR: you shouldn't pass mutable objects around. See: https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-native/blob/master/CONCURRENCY.md#object-transfer-and-freezing ).
Also, my log function would ideally accept any frozen object. )
What I've come up with are solutions using DetachedObjectGraph:
First, I create a detached logger object
val loggerGraph = DetachedObjectGraph { FileLogger("/foo/mylogfile.txt")}
and then use loggerGraph.asCPointer() ( asCPointer() ) to get a COpaquePointer to the detached graph:
val myPointer = loggerGraph.asCPointer()
Now I can pass this pointer into the workers ( via the producer lambda of the Worker's execute function ), and use it there. Or I can store the pointer in a #ThreadLocal global var.
For the code that writes to the file, whenever I want to log a line, I have to create a DetachedObjectGraph object from the pointer again,
and attach() it in order to get a reference to my fileLogger object:
val fileLogger = DetachedObjectGraph(myPointer).attach()
Now I can call a log function on the logger:
fileLogger.log("My log message")
This is what I've come up with looking at the APIs that are available (as of Kotlin 1.3.61) for concurrency in Kotlin Native,
but I'm left wondering what a better approach would be ( using Kotlin, not resorting to C ). Clearly it's bad to create a DetachedObjectGraph object for every line written.
One could pose this question in a more general way: How to keep a mutable resource open in a separate thread ( or worker ), and send messages to it.
Side comment: Having Coroutines that truly use threads would solve this problem, but the question is about how to solve this task with the APIs currently ( Kotlin 1.3.61 ) available.
You definitely shouldn't use DetachedObjectGraph in the way presented in the question. There's nothing to prevent you from trying to attach on multiple threads, or if you pass the same pointer, trying to attach to an invalid one after another thread as attached to it.
As Dominic mentioned, you can keep the DetachedObjectGraph in an AtomicReference. However, if you're going to keep DetachedObjectGraph in an AtomicReference, make sure the type is AtomicRef<DetachedObjectGraph?> and busy-loop while the DetachedObjectGraph is null. That will prevent the same DetachedObjectGraph from being used by multiple threads. Make sure to set it to null, and repopulate it, in an atomic way.
However, does FileLogger need to be mutable at all? If you're writing to a file, it doesn't seem so. Even if so, I'd isolate the mutable object to a separate worker and send log messages to it rather than doing a DetachedObjectGraph inside an AtomicRef.
In my experience, DetachedObjectGraph is super uncommon in production code. We don't use it anywhere at the moment.
To isolate mutable state to a Worker, something like this:
class MutableThing<T:Any>(private val worker:Worker = Worker.start(), producer:()->T){
private val arStable = AtomicReference<StableRef<T>?>(null)
init {
worker.execute(TransferMode.SAFE, {Pair(arStable, producer).freeze()}){
it.first.value = StableRef.create(it.second()).freeze()
}
}
fun <R> access(block:(T)->R):R{
return worker.execute(TransferMode.SAFE, {Pair(arStable, block).freeze()}){
it.second(it.first.value!!.get())
}.result
}
}
object Log{
private val fileLogger = MutableThing { FileLogger() }
fun log(s:String){
fileLogger.access { fl -> fl.log(s) }
}
}
class FileLogger{
fun log(s:String){}
}
The MutableThing uses StableRef internally. producer makes the mutable state you want to isolate. To log something, call Log.log, which will wind up calling the mutable FileLogger.
To see a basic example of MutableThing, run the following test:
#Test
fun goIso(){
val mt = MutableThing { mutableListOf("a", "b")}
val workers = Array(4){Worker.start()}
val futures = mutableListOf<Future<*>>()
repeat(1000) { rcount ->
val future = workers[rcount % workers.size].execute(
TransferMode.SAFE,
{ Pair(mt, rcount).freeze() }
) { pair ->
pair.first.access {
val element = "ttt ${pair.second}"
println(element)
it.add(element)
}
}
futures.add(future)
}
futures.forEach { it.result }
workers.forEach { it.requestTermination() }
mt.access {
println("size: ${it.size}")
}
}
The approach you've taken is pretty much correct and the way it's supposed to be done.
The thing I would add is, instead of passing around a pointer around. You should pass around a frozen FileLogger, which will internally hold a reference to a AtomicRef<DetachedObjectGraph>, the the attaching and detaching should be done internally. Especially since DetachedObjectGraphs are invalid once attached.
I am writing multi-threaded server that handles async read from many tcp sockets. Here is the section of code that bothers me.
void data_recv (void) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)),
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (boost::system::error_code ec, std::size_t bytesRx) {
if ( rawDataW[bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER { // <-- this code is fine
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
read_socket_until_endmarker // <-- HELP REQUIRED!!
process_and_write_rawadata_to_file
}
}
Nearly always the async_read_some reads in data including the endmarker, so it works fine. Rarely, the endmarker's arrival is delayed in the stream and that's when my program fails. I think it fails because I have not understood how boost bind works.
My first question:
I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
my second question:
In the on_data_recv() method, how do I read data from the same socket that was read in the on_data() method? In other words, how do I pass the socket as argument from calling method to the handler? when the handler is executed in another thread? Any help in form of a few lines of code that can fit into my "read_socket_until_endmarker" will be appreciated.
My first question: I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
In the example (and I'm assuming this holds for your functions as well) the start_accept() is a member function. The bind function is conveniently designed such that when you use & in front of its first argument, it interprets it as a member function that is applied to its second argument.
So while a code like this:
void foo(int x) { ... }
bind(foo, 3)();
Is equivalent to just calling foo(3)
Code like this:
struct Bar { void foo(int x); }
Bar bar;
bind(&foo, &bar, 3)(); // <--- notice the & before foo
Would be equivalent to calling bar.foo(3).
And thus as per your example
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this, // <--- notice & again
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)
When this object is invoked inside Asio it shall be equivalent to calling this->on_data_recv(error, size). Checkout this link for more info.
For the second part, it is not clear to me how you're working with multiple threads, do you run io_service.run() from more than one thread (possible but I think is beyond your experience level)? It might be the case that you're confusing async IO with multithreading. I'm gonna assume that is the case and if you correct me I'll change my answer.
The usual and preferred starting point is to have just one thread running the io_service.run() function. Don't worry, this will allow you to handle many sockets asynchronously.
If that is the case, your two functions could easily be modified as such:
void data_recv (size_t startPos = 0) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)) + startPos,
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
startPos,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (size_t startPos,
boost::system::error_code ec,
std::size_t bytesRx) {
// TODO: Check ec
if (rawDataW[startPos + bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER) {
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
// TODO: Error if startPos + bytesRx == 648*2
data_recv(startPos + bytesRx);
}
}
Notice though that the above code still has problems, the main one being that if the other side sent two messages quickly one after another, we could receive (in one async_read_some call) the full first message + part of the second message, and thus missing the ENDMARKER from the first one. Thus it is not enough to only test whether the last received byte is == to the ENDMARKER.
I could go on and modify this function further (I think you might get the idea on how), but you'd be better off using async_read_until which is meant exactly for this purpose.
Wondering if there is a way I can use sql.eachRow like a generator, to use it in a DSL context where a Collection or Iterator is expected. The use case I'm trying to go for is streaming JSON generation - what I'm trying to do is something like:
def generator = { sql.eachRow { yield it } }
jsonBuilder.root {
status "OK"
rows generator()
}
You would need continuation support (or similiar) for this to work to some extend. Groovy does not have continuations, the JVM also not. Normally continuation passing style works, but then the method eachRow would have to support that, which it of course does not. So the only way I see is a makeshift solution using threads or something like that. So maybe something like that would work for you:
def sync = new java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue()
Thread.start { sql.eachRow { sync.put(it) } }
jsonBuilder.root {
status "OK"
rows sync.take()
}
I am not stating, that this is a good solution, just a random consumer-producer-work-around for your problem.
Using C# 4.0 features I want a generic wrapper for encapsulating functions and add a TimeOut parameter to them.
For example we have a function like:
T DoLengthyOperation()
Using Func we have:
Func<T>
This is good and call the function even Sync (Invloke) or Async(BeginInvoke).
Now think of a TimeOut to be added to this behavior and if DoLengthyOperation() returns in specified time we have true returned, otherwise false.
Something like:
FuncTimeOut<in T1, in T2, ..., out TResult, int timeOut, bool result>
Implement C# Generic Timeout
Don't return true/false for complete. Throw an exception.
I don't have time to implement it, but it should be possible and your basic signature would look like this:
T DoLengthyOperation<T>(int TimeoutInMilliseconds, Func<T> operation)
And you could call this method either by passing in the name of any Func<T> as an argument or define it place as a lambda expression. Unfortunately, you'll also need to provide an overload for different kind of function you want, as there's currently no way to specify a variable number a generic type arguments.
Instead of mixing out and bool I would instead construct a separate type to capture the return. For example
struct Result<T> {
private bool _isSuccess;
private T _value;
public bool IsSucces { get { return _success; } }
public T Value { get { return _value; } }
public Result(T value) {
_value = value;
_isSuccess = true;
}
}
This is definitely possible to write. The only problem is that in order to implement a timeout, it's necessary to do one of the following
Move the long running operation onto another thread.
Add cancellation support to the long running operation and signal cancellation from another thread.
Ingrain the notion of timeout into the operation itself and have it check for the time being expired at many points in the operation.
Which is best for you is hard to determine because we don't know enough about your scenario. My instinct though would be to go for #2 or #3. Having the primary code not have to switch threads is likely the least impactful change to your code.