Greetings SO denizens!
I'm trying to architect an overhaul of an existing NodeJS application that has outgrown its original design. The solutions I'm working towards are well beyond my experience.
The system has ~50 unique async tasks defined as various finite state machines which it knows how to perform. Each task has a required set of parameters to begin execution which may be supplied by interactive prompts, a database or from the results of a previously completed async task.
I have a UI where the user may define a directed graph ("the flow"), specifying which tasks they want to run and the order they want to execute them in with additional properties associated with both the vertices and edges such as extra conditionals to evaluate before calling a child task(s). This information is stored in a third normal form PostgreSQL database as a "parent + child + property value" configuration which seems to work fairly well.
Because of the sheer number of permutations, conditionals and absurd number of possible points of failure I'm leaning towards expressing "the flow" as a state machine. I merely have just enough knowledge of graph theory and state machines to implement them but practically zero background.
I think what I'm trying to accomplish is at the flow run time after user input for the root services have been received, is somehow compile the database representation of the graph + properties into a state machine of some variety.
To further complicate the matter in the near future I would like to be able to "pause" a flow, save its state to memory, load it on another worker some time in the future and resume execution.
I think I'm close to a viable solution but if one of you kind souls would take mercy on a blind fool and point me in the right direction I'd be forever in your debt.
I solved similar problem few years ago as my bachelor and diploma thesis. I designed a Cascade, an executable structure which forms growing acyclic oriented graph. You can read about it in my paper "Self-generating Programs – Cascade of the Blocks".
The basic idea is, that each block has inputs and outputs. Initially some blocks are inserted into the cascade and inputs are connected to outputs of other blocks to form an acyclic graph. When a block is executed, it reads its inputs (cascade will pass values from connected outputs) and then the block sets its outputs. It can also insert additional blocks into the cascade and connect its inputs to outputs of already present blocks. This should be equal to your task starting another task and passing some parameters to it. Alternative to setting output to an value is forwarding a value from another output (in your case waiting for a result of some other task, so it is possible to launch helper sub-tasks).
Related
I have two processes I want to juxtapose. The first is a Manual workflow that is well represented by the Process library. The second is a software System that performs the same work, but is better modelled as a state transition system (e.g. s/w component level).
Now in AnyLogic, state models are for agents, that can run through processes with animations (counts), or move across space. What if I want to use a state chart to run an agent through? so I have a System state chart/agent and a Job state chart/agent?
I want Jobs from Population A to go through the Manual process flow chart and Jobs from Population B to go through the System state flow chart, so I can juxtapose the processing costs. I then calculate various delays and resource allocations for each of the Jobs going through and compare them.
Can anyone explain how to setup a state chart as the base process, another agent will go through? Is this even possible?
Please help
Thanks
This will not work as you would like it to, for these reasons:
You can't send an Agent into a flowchart. (Not sure how AnyLogic is handling it internally, maybe a generic token, or no flow at all, just changes to the state).
In AnyLogic there can only be one state active (simple or combined state) per state chart, so you can't represent a population with several members.
Agents can't be in more then one flow at a time, so even if it would be possible to insert an Agent into a statechart, this limitation would also apply.
The conclusion of this is: State charts are suitable for modeling individual behaviour (inside one Agent), whereas process flows can be both used for individual behaviour (inside one Agent, running a dummy Agent through) as well as for groups (multiple Agents running through process).
The normal use case would be to add the state chart to the Agent type running through your process flow (as you already noted in your question), applying the changes caused by the state chart to the individual agent.
We are using CQRS with EventSourcing.
In our application we can add resources(it is business term for a single item) from ui and we are sending command accordingly to add resources.
So we have x number of resources present in application which were added previously.
Now, we have one special type of resource(I am calling it as SpecialResource).
When we add this SpecialResource , id needs to be linked with all existing resources in application.
Linked means this SpecialResource should have List of ids(guids) (List)of existing resources.
The solution which we tried to get all resource ids in applcation before adding the special
resource(i.e before firing the AddSpecialResource command).
Assign these List to SpecialResource, Then send AddSpecialResource command.
But we are not suppose to do so , because as per cqrs command should not query.
I.e. command cant depend upon query as query can have stale records.
How can we achieve this business scenario without querying existing records in application?
But we are not suppose to do so , because as per cqrs command should not query. I.e. command cant depend upon query as query can have stale records.
This isn't quite right.
"Commands" run queries all the time. If you are using event sourcing, in most cases your commands are queries -- "if this command were permitted, what events would be generated?"
The difference between this, and the situation you described, is the aggregate boundary, which in an event sourced domain is a fancy name for the event stream. An aggregate is allowed to run a query against its own event stream (which is to say, its own state) when processing a command. It's the other aggregates (event streams) that are out of bounds.
In practical terms, this means that if SpecialResource really does need to be transactionally consistent with the other resource ids, then all of that data needs to be part of the same aggregate, and therefore part of the same event stream, and everything from that point is pretty straight forward.
So if you have been modeling the resources with separate streams up to this point, and now you need SpecialResource to work as you have described, then you have a fairly significant change to your domain model to do.
The good news: that's probably not your real requirement. Consider what you have described so far - if resourceId:99652 is created one millisecond before SpecialResource, then it should be included in the state of SpecialResource, but if it is created one millisecond after, then it shouldn't. So what's the cost to the business if the resource created one millisecond before the SpecialResource is missed?
Because, a priori, that doesn't sound like something that should be too expensive.
More commonly, the real requirement looks something more like "SpecialResource needs to include all of the resource ids created prior to close of business", but you don't actually need SpecialResource until 5 minutes after close of business. In other words, you've got an SLA here, and you can use that SLA to better inform your command.
How can we achieve this business scenario without querying existing records in application?
Turn it around; run the query, copy the results of the query (the resource ids) into the command that creates SpecialResource, then dispatch the command to be passed to your domain model. The CreateSpecialResource command includes within it the correct list of resource ids, so the aggregate doesn't need to worry about how to discover that information.
It is hard to tell what your database is capable of, but the most consistent way of adding a "snapshot" is at the database layer, because there is no other common place in pure CQRS for that. (There are some articles on doing CQRS+ES snapshots, if that is what you actually try to achieve with SpecialResource).
One way may be to materialize list of ids using some kind of stored procedure with the arrival of AddSpecialResource command (at the database).
Another way is to capture "all existing resources (up to the moment)" with some marker (timestamp), never delete old resources, and add "SpecialResource" condition in the queries, which will use the SpecialResource data.
Ok, one more option (depends on your case at hand) is to always have the list of ids handy with the same query, which served the UI. This way the definition of "all resources" changes to "all resources as seen by the user (at some moment)".
I do not think any computer system is ever going to be 100% consistent simply because life does not, and can not, work like this. Apparently we are all also living in the past since it takes time for your brain to process input.
The point is that you do the best you can with the information at hand but ensure that your system is able to smooth out any edges. So if you need to associate one or two resources with your SpecialResource then you should be able to do so.
So even if you could associate your SpecialResource with all existing entries in your data store what is to say that there isn't another resource that has not yet been entered into the system that also needs to be associated.
It all, as usual, will depend on your specific use-case. This is why process managers, along with their state, enable one to massage that state until the process can complete.
I hope I didn't misinterpret your question :)
You can do two things in order to solve that problem:
make a distinction between write and read model. You know what read model is, right? So "write model" of data in contrast is a combination of data structures and behaviors that is just enough to enforce all invariants and generate consistent event(s) as a result of every executed command.
don't take a rule which states "Event Store is a single source of truth" too literally. Consider the following interpretation: ES is a single source of ALL truth for your application, however, for each specific command you can create "write models" which will provide just enough "truth" in order to make this command consistent.
I apologize up front for this long post, but as you can probably see I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and I feel I need some input from other people before my head explodes :-)
I have been experimenting for some time now with various ways of building a game engine which satifies all the following criteria:
Complete seperation of object updating and object rendering
Full determinism
Updating and rendering at individual speeds
No blocking on shared resources
Complete seperation of object updating and object rendering
Seperation of object updating and object rendering seems to be vital to ensure optimal usage of resources while sending data to the graphics API and swapping buffers.
Even if you want to ensure full parallelism to use multiple cores of a CPU it seems that this seperation must still be managed.
Full determinism
Many game types, and especially multiplayer versions, must ensure full determinism. Otherwise players will experience different states of the same game effectively breaking the game logic. Determinism is required for game replays as well. And it is useful for other purposes where it is important that each run of a simulation produces the same result every time given the same starting conditions and inputs.
Updating and rendering at individual speeds
This is really a prerequisite for full determinism as you cannot have the simulation depend on rendering speeds (ie the various monitor refresh rates, graphics adapter speed etc.). During optimal conditions the update speed should be set at a certain fixed interval (eg. 25 updates per second - maybe less depending on the update type), and the rendering speed should be whatever the client's monitor refresh rate / graphics adapter allows.
This implies that rendering speed higher that update speed should be allowed. And while that sounds like a waste there are known tricks to ensure that the added rendering cycles are not wastes (interpolation / extrapolation) which means that faster monitors / adapters would be rewarded with a more visually pleasing experience as they should.
Rendering speeds lower than update speed must also be allowed though, even if this does in fact result in wasted updating cycles - at least the added updating cycles are not all presented to the user. This is however necessary to ensure a smooth multiplayer experience even if the rendering in one of the clients slows to a sudden crawl for one reason or another.
No blocking on shared resources
If the other criterias mentioned above are to be implemented it must also follow that we cannot allow rendering to be waiting for updating or vice versa. Of course it is painfully obvious that when 2 different threads share access to resources and one thread is updating some of these resources then it is impossible to guarantee that blocking will never take place. It is, however, possible to keep this blocking at an absolute minimum - for example when switching pointer references between queue of updated object and a queue of previously rendered objects.
So...
My question to all you skilled people in here is: Am I asking for too much?
I have been reading about ideas of these various topics on many sites. But always it seems that one part or the other is left out from the suggestions I've seen. And maybe the reason is that you cannot have it all without compromise.
I started this seemingly common quest a long time ago when I was putting my thoughts about it in this thread:
Thoughts about rendering loop strategies
Back then my first naive assumption was that it shouldn't matter if updating and reading happened simultaneously since this variations object state was so small that you shouldn't notice if one object was occasionally a step ahead of the other.
Now I am somewhat wiser, but still confused at times.
The most promising and detailed description of a method that would allow for all my wishes to come through was this:
http://blog.slapware.eu/game-engine/programming/multithreaded-renderloop-part1/
A three-state model that will ensure that the renderer can always choose a new queue for rendering without any wait (except perhaps a micro-second while switching pointer-references). At the same time the updater can alway gain access to 2 queues required for building the next state tree (1 queue for creating/updating the next state, and 1 queue for reading the previsous - which can be done even while the renderer reads it as well).
I recently found time to make a sample implementation of this, and it works very well, but for two issues.
One is a minor issue of having to deal with multiple references to all involved objects
The other is more serious (unless I'm just being too needy). And that is the fact that extrapolation - as opposed to intrapolation - is used to maintain a visually pleasing representation of the states given a fast screen refresh rate. While both methods do the job of showing states deviating from the solidly calculated object states, extrapolation seems to me to produce much more visible artifacts when the predictions fail to represent reality. My position seems to be supported by this:
http://gafferongames.com/networked-physics/snapshots-and-interpolation/
And it is not possible to implement interpolation in the three-state design as far as I can tell, since it requires the renderer to have read-access to 2 queues at all times to calculate the intermediate state between two known states.
So I was toying with extending the three-state model suggested on the slapware-blog to utilize interpolation instead of extrapolation - and at the same time try to simplify the multi-reference structur. While it seems to me to be possible, I am wondering if the price is too high. In order to meet all my goals I would need to have
2 queues (or states) exclusively held by the renderer (they could be used by another thread for read-only purposes, but never updated, or switched during rendering
1 queue (or state) with the newest updated state ready to switch over to the renderer, when it is done rendering the current scene
1 queue (or state) with the next frame being built/updated by the updater
1 queue (or state) containing a copy of the frame last built/updated. This is the same state as last sent to the renderer, so this queue/state should be accessible by both the updater for reading the previous state and the renderer for rendering the state.
So that would mean that I should keep at all times 4 copies of render states to be able to keep this design running smoothly, locklessly, deterministically.
I fear that I'm overthinking this. So if any of you have advise to pull me back on the ground, or advises of what can be improved, critique of the design, or perhaps references to good resources explaining how these goals can be achieved, or why this is or isn't a good idea - please hit me with them :-)
If I have ,say, 2 screens. First is the prompt screen which asks for, say, some record key and the next screen displays the information about the record.
Now when I want to transfer the control to the second screen (after doing the job of the 1st screen) I can do that by :
exec cics
return(trans-id)
commarea(ws-commarea)
end exec.
where trans-id is that of the 2nd screen.
Then what is need for using a calling function such as xctl when we already have the return() available in cics?
Using XCTL or LINK or dynamic CALLs confines your processing to one CICS transaction.
If you so desire, you can design your application to spread different business functions across multiple transactions, passing data with a commarea.
Historically this wasn't done for a number of reasons. Thirty years ago, some CICS Systems Programmers felt transaction IDs were a limited resource and encouraged application designers to keep processing to the minimum number of transactions possible.
Security in CICS is handled at the transaction level, so your user must have authority to execute all transactions that comprise the business function they must perform.
Resources such as temporary storage queues are often named in part using the transaction ID to differentiate and keep them separate.
Prior to CICS TS version 2 (I think) the data to be shared between those transactions was limited to the size of a commarea (32K). All supported versions of CICS now have channels and containers, allowing you to pass significantly larger amounts of data.
My experience is that it is simpler to code and easier to maintain pseudo-conversational transactions with screen interactions if the code is all in one transaction. You really want your transactions to be pseudo-conversational or non conversational. I believe this to be the overriding reason you see transactions designed to use XCTL, LINK, or dynamic CALLs.
XCTL also doesn't allow dynamic routing (you always stay in the same CICS region), and is one way only. Pseudo-conversational return as above will let the user update the screen, and then only when they press an Attention Identifier (such as Enter) will the next program run. XCTL will run immediately.
I'm designing a large-scale project, and I think I see a way I could drastically improve performance by taking advantage of multiple cores. However, I have zero experience with multiprocessing, and I'm a little concerned that my ideas might not be good ones.
Idea
The program is a video game that procedurally generates massive amounts of content. Since there's far too much to generate all at once, the program instead tries to generate what it needs as or slightly before it needs it, and expends a large amount of effort trying to predict what it will need in the near future and how near that future is. The entire program, therefore, is built around a task scheduler, which gets passed function objects with bits of metadata attached to help determine what order they should be processed in and calls them in that order.
Motivation
It seems to be like it ought to be easy to make these functions execute concurrently in their own processes. But looking at the documentation for the multiprocessing modules makes me reconsider- there doesn't seem to be any simple way to share large data structures between threads. I can't help but imagine this is intentional.
Questions
So I suppose the fundamental questions I need to know the answers to are thus:
Is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to access the same list/dict/etc... for both reading and writing at the same time? Can I just launch multiple instances of my star generator, give it access to the dict that holds all the stars, and have new objects appear to just pop into existence in the dict from the perspective of other threads (that is, I wouldn't have to explicitly grab the star from the process that made it; I'd just pull it out of the dict as if the main thread had put it there itself).
If not, is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to read the same data structure at the same time, but feed their resultant data back to a main thread to be rolled into that same data structure safely?
Would this design work even if I ensured that no two concurrent functions tried to access the same data structure at the same time, either for reading or for writing?
Can data structures be inherently shared between processes at all, or do I always explicitly have to send data from one process to another as I would with processes communicating over a TCP stream? I know there are objects that abstract away that sort of thing, but I'm asking if it can be done away with entirely; have the object each thread is looking at actually be the same block of memory.
How flexible are the objects that the modules provide to abstract away the communication between processes? Can I use them as a drop-in replacement for data structures used in existing code and not notice any differences? If I do such a thing, would it cause an unmanageable amount of overhead?
Sorry for my naivete, but I don't have a formal computer science education (at least, not yet) and I've never worked with concurrent systems before. Is the idea I'm trying to implement here even remotely practical, or would any solution that allows me to transparently execute arbitrary functions concurrently cause so much overhead that I'd be better off doing everything in one thread?
Example
For maximum clarity, here's an example of how I imagine the system would work:
The UI module has been instructed by the player to move the view over to a certain area of space. It informs the content management module of this, and asks it to make sure that all of the stars the player can currently click on are fully generated and ready to be clicked on.
The content management module checks and sees that a couple of the stars the UI is saying the player could potentially try to interact with have not, in fact, had the details that would show upon click generated yet. It produces a number of Task objects containing the methods of those stars that, when called, will generate the necessary data. It also adds some metadata to these task objects, assuming (possibly based on further information collected from the UI module) that it will be 0.1 seconds before the player tries to click anything, and that stars whose icons are closest to the cursor have the greatest chance of being clicked on and should therefore be requested for a time slightly sooner than the stars further from the cursor. It then adds these objects to the scheduler queue.
The scheduler quickly sorts its queue by how soon each task needs to be done, then pops the first task object off the queue, makes a new process from the function it contains, and then thinks no more about that process, instead just popping another task off the queue and stuffing it into a process too, then the next one, then the next one...
Meanwhile, the new process executes, stores the data it generates on the star object it is a method of, and terminates when it gets to the return statement.
The UI then registers that the player has indeed clicked on a star now, and looks up the data it needs to display on the star object whose representative sprite has been clicked. If the data is there, it displays it; if it isn't, the UI displays a message asking the player to wait and continues repeatedly trying to access the necessary attributes of the star object until it succeeds.
Even though your problem seems very complicated, there is a very easy solution. You can hide away all the complicated stuff of sharing you objects across processes using a proxy.
The basic idea is that you create some manager that manages all your objects that should be shared across processes. This manager then creates its own process where it waits that some other process instructs it to change the object. But enough said. It looks like this:
import multiprocessing as m
manager = m.Manager()
starsdict = manager.dict()
process = Process(target=yourfunction, args=(starsdict,))
process.run()
The object stored in starsdict is not the real dict. instead it sends all changes and requests, you do with it, to its manager. This is called a "proxy", it has almost exactly the same API as the object it mimics. These proxies are pickleable, so you can pass as arguments to functions in new processes (like shown above) or send them through queues.
You can read more about this in the documentation.
I don't know how proxies react if two processes are accessing them simultaneously. Since they're made for parallelism I guess they should be safe, even though I heard they're not. It would be best if you test this yourself or look for it in the documentation.