I have a function retry which basically looks like this (simplified):
object SomeObject {
def retry[T](n: Int)(fn: => T): Option[T] = {
val res = try {
Some(fn)
} catch {
case _: Exception => None
}
res match {
case Some(x) => Some(x)
case None =>
if (n > 1)
//make it sleep for a little while
retry(n - 1)(fn)
else None
}
}
}
I need to make some pause between the attempts. As I was told, it's not acceptable to call Thread.sleep(123) inside an actor:
class MyActor extends Actor {
//......
def someFunc = {
Thread.sleep(456) // it's not acceptable in an actor, there is another way to do it
}
}
Obviously, I don't know whether or not a client will use SomeObject.retry inside an actor:
class MyActor extends Actor {
//......
def someFunc = {
SomeObject.retry(5)(someRequestToServer) // ops, SomeObject.retry uses Thread.sleep!
}
}
So if I just add:
res match {
case Some(x) => Some(x)
case None =>
if (n > 1)
//make it sleep for a little while
Thread.sleep(123) // ops, what if it's being called inside an actor by a client?!
retry(n - 1)(fn)
else None
}
}
it won't be sensible, will it? If not, what do I do?
Yes, calling Thread.sleep is a bad idea as in an actor system threads are normally a limited resource shared between Actors. You do not want an Actor calling sleep and hogging a Thread from other Actors.
What you should do instead is use the Scheduler (see docs) to have your actor sent a message to itself sometime in the future to retry. To do this, you would have to move the retry code out of SomeObject and into the Actor
class MyActor extends Actor {
import context.system.dispatcher
def receive = {
case DoIt(retries) if retries > 0 =>
SomeObject.attempt(someRequestToServer) match {
case Some(x) => ...
case None =>
context.system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(5.seconds, self, DoIt(retries - 1))
}
}
}
Then if you were using SomeObject.try outside of an Actor System
def attempt(retries: Int) = {
SomeObject.attempt(someRequestToServer) match {
case Some(x) => ...
case None if retries > 0 => {
Thread.sleep(123)
attempt(retries - 1)
}
}
}
Where SomeObject.attempt is:
object SomeObject {
def attempt[T](fn: => T): Option[T] =
try {
Some(fn)
} catch {
case _: Exception => None
}
}
Related
I would like to run some treads, wait till all of them are finished and get the results.
Possible way to do that would be in the code below. Is it thread safe though?
import kotlin.concurrent.thread
sealed class Errorneous<R>
data class Success<R>(val result: R) : Errorneous<R>()
data class Fail<R>(val error: Exception) : Errorneous<R>()
fun <R> thread_with_result(fn: () -> R): (() -> Errorneous<R>) {
var r: Errorneous<R>? = null
val t = thread {
r = try { Success(fn()) } catch (e: Exception) { Fail(e) }
}
return {
t.join()
r!!
}
}
fun main() {
val tasks = listOf({ 2 * 2 }, { 3 * 3 })
val results = tasks
.map{ thread_with_result(it) }
.map{ it() }
println(results)
}
P.S.
Are there better built-in tools in Kotlin to do that? Like process 10000 tasks with pool of 10 threads?
It should be threads, not coroutines, as it will be used with legacy code and I don't know if it works well with coroutines.
Seems like Java has Executors that doing exactly that
fun <R> execute_in_parallel(tasks: List<() -> R>, threads: Int): List<Errorneous<R>> {
val executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threads)
val fresults = executor.invokeAll(tasks.map { task ->
Callable<Errorneous<R>> {
try { Success(task()) } catch (e: Exception) { Fail(e) }
}
})
return fresults.map { future -> future.get() }
}
For example
import scala.actors.Actor
import scala.actors.Actor._
object Main {
class Pong extends Actor {
def act() {
var pongCount = 0
while (true) {
receive {
case "Ping" =>
if (pongCount % 1000 == 0)
Console.println("Pong: ping "+pongCount)
sender ! "Pong"
pongCount = pongCount + 1
case "Stop" =>
Console.println("Pong: stop")
exit()
}
}
}
}
class Ping(count: Int, pong: Actor) extends Actor {
def act() {
var pingsLeft = count - 1
pong ! "Ping"
while (true) {
receive {
case "Pong" =>
if (pingsLeft % 1000 == 0)
Console.println("Ping: pong")
if (pingsLeft > 0) {
pong ! "Ping"
pingsLeft -= 1
} else {
Console.println("Ping: stop")
pong ! "Stop"
exit()
}
}
}
}
}
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val pong = new Pong
val ping = new Ping(100000, pong)
ping.start
pong.start
println("???")
}
}
I try to print "???" after the two actors call exit(), but now it is printed before "Ping: Stop" and "Pong stop"
I have try have a flag in the actor, flag is false while actor is running, and flag is true when actor stops, and in the main func, there is a while loop, such as while (actor.flag == false) {}, but it doesn't works, it is a endless loop:-/
So, please give me some advice.
If you need synchronous calls in akka, use ask pattern. Like
Await.result(ping ? "ping")
Also, you'd better use actor system to create actors.
import akka.actor.{ActorRef, Props, Actor, ActorSystem}
import akka.pattern.ask
import akka.util.Timeout
import scala.concurrent.Await
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
object Test extends App {
implicit val timeout = Timeout(3 second)
val system = ActorSystem("ActorSystem")
class Pong extends Actor {
def receive: Receive = {
case "Ping" =>
println("ping")
context.stop(self)
}
}
lazy val pong = system.actorOf(Props(new Pong), "Pong")
val x = pong.ask("Ping")
val res = Await.result(x, timeout.duration)
println("????")
system.shutdown()
}
in an application where there could be multiple threads running, and not sure about the possibilities if these methods will be accessed under a multhreaded environment or not but to be safe, I've done a test class to demonstrate a situation.
One method has was programmed to be thread safe (please also comment if it's done right) but the rest were not.
In a situation like this, where there is only one single line of code inside remove and add, is it necessary to make them thread safe or is it going to be exaggeration.
import Foundation
class Some {}
class Test {
var dict = [String: Some]()
func has(key: String) -> Bool {
var has = false
dispatch_sync(dispatch_queue_create("has", nil), { [unowned self] in
has = self.dict[key] != nil
})
return has
}
func remove(key: String) -> Some {
var ob = dict[key]
dict[key] = nil
return ob
}
func add(key: String, ob: Some) {
dict[key] = ob
}
}
Edit after comments
class Some {}
class Test {
var dict = [String: Some]()
private let queue: dispatch_queue_t = dispatch_queue_create("has", DISPATCH_QUEUE_CONCURRENT)
func has(key: String) -> Bool {
var has = false
dispatch_sync(queue) {
has = self.dict[key] != nil
}
return has
}
func remove(key: String) -> Some? { //returns
var removed: Some?
dispatch_barrier_sync(queue) {
removed = self.dict.removeValueForKey(key)
}
return removed
}
func add(key: String, ob: Some) { //not async
dispatch_barrier_sync(queue) {
self.dict[key] = ob
}
}
}
The way you are checking whether a key exists is incorrect. You are creating a new queue every time, which means the operations are not happening synchronously.
The way I would do it is like so:
class Some {}
class Test {
var dict = [String: Some]()
private let queue: dispatch_queue_t = dispatch_queue_create("has", DISPATCH_QUEUE_CONCURRENT)
func has(key: String) -> Bool {
var has = false
dispatch_sync(queue) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
has = strongSelf.dict[key] != nil
}
return has
}
func remove(key: String) {
dispatch_barrier_async(queue) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.dict[key] = nil
}
}
func add(key: String, ob: Some) {
dispatch_barrier_async(queue) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.dict[key] = ob
}
}
}
Firstly, I am creating a serial queue that is going to be used to access the dictionary as a property of the object, rather than creating a new one every time. The queue is private as it is only used internally.
When I want to get a value out of the class, I am just dispatching a block synchronously to the queue and waits for the block to finish before returning whether or not the queue exists. Since this is not mutating the dictionary, it is safe for multiple blocks of this sort to run on the concurrent queue.
When I want to add or remove values from the dictionary, I am adding the block to the queue but with a barrier. What this does is that it stops all other blocks on the queue while it is running. When it is finished, all the other blocks can run concurrently. I am using an async dispatch, because I don't need to wait for a return value.
Imagine you have multiple threads trying to see whether or not key values exist or adding or removing values. If you have lots of reads, then they happen concurrently, but when one of the blocks is run that will change the dictionary, all other blocks wait until this change is completed and then start running again.
In this way, you have the speed and convenience of running concurrently when getting values, and the thread safety of blocking while the dictionary is being mutated.
Edited to add
self is marked as weak in the block so that it doesn't create a reference cycle. As #MartinR mentioned in the comments; it is possible that the object is deallocated while blocks are still in the queue, If this happens then self is undefined, and you'll probably get a runtime error trying to access the dictionary, as it may also be deallocated.
By setting declaring self within the block to be weak, if the object exists, then self will not be nil, and can be conditionally unwrapped into strongSelf which points to self and also creates a strong reference, so that self will not be deallocated while the instructions in the block are carried out. When these instructions complete, strongSelf will go out of scope and release the strong reference to self.
This is sometimes known as the "strong self, weak self dance".
Edited Again : Swift 3 version
class Some {}
class Test {
var dict = [String: Some]()
private let queue = DispatchQueue(label: "has", qos: .default, attributes: .concurrent)
func has(key: String) -> Bool {
var has = false
queue.sync { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
has = strongSelf.dict[key] != nil
}
return has
}
func remove(key: String) {
queue.async(flags: .barrier) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.dict[key] = nil
}
}
func add(key: String, ob: Some) {
queue.async(flags: .barrier) { [weak self] in
guard let strongSelf = self else { return }
strongSelf.dict[key] = ob
}
}
}
Here is another swift 3 solution which provides thread-safe access to AnyObject.
It allocates recursive pthread_mutex associated with 'object' if needed.
class LatencyManager
{
private var latencies = [String : TimeInterval]()
func set(hostName: String, latency: TimeInterval) {
synchronizedBlock(lockedObject: latencies as AnyObject) { [weak self] in
self?.latencies[hostName] = latency
}
}
/// Provides thread-safe access to given object
private func synchronizedBlock(lockedObject: AnyObject, block: () -> Void) {
objc_sync_enter(lockedObject)
block()
objc_sync_exit(lockedObject)
}
}
Then you can call for example set(hostName: "stackoverflow.com", latency: 1)
UPDATE
You can simply define a method in a swift file (not in a class):
/// Provides thread-safe access to given object
public func synchronizedAccess(to object: AnyObject, _ block: () -> Void)
{
objc_sync_enter(object)
block()
objc_sync_exit(object)
}
And use it like this:
synchronizedAccess(to: myObject) {
myObject.foo()
}
this code works fine but i want to manage threads, by Future.
sendSMS method takes normally 3 to 5 seconds to execute, i want to applying future and applied at one place but want to know is it enough or not?
val c = for {
t <- Future { doSendSms("+9178787878787","i scare with threads") }
} yield t
c.map { res =>
res match {
case e: Error => {
Ok(write(Map("result" -> "error")))
}
case Success() => {
Ok(write(Map("result" -> "success")))
}
def doSendSms(recipient: String, body: String): SentSmsResult = {
try {
sendSMS(recipient, body)
Success()
} catch {
case twilioEx: TwilioRestException =>
return Error(twilioEx.toString)
case e: Exception =>
return Error(e.toString)
}
}
def sendSMS(smsTo: String, body: String) = {
val params = Map("To" -> smsTo, "From" -> twilioNumber, "Body" -> body)
val messageFactory = client.getAccount.getSmsFactory
messageFactory.create(params)
}// sending sms from twilio, this method takes 3 to 5 seconds to execute
if not how to manage Future in this code
I would use recover:
val c = for {
t <- doSendSms("+9178787878787","i scare with threads")
} yield t
def doSendSms(recipient: String, body: String): Future[SentSmsResult] =
Future {
sendSMS(recipient, body)
}
.recover {
case twilioEx: TwilioRestException => Error(twilioEx.toString)
case e: Exception => Error(e.toString)
}
}
recover will catch exceptions thrown in the future execution allowing you to return a new result wrapped in a Future, as the documentation states:
The recover combinator creates a new future which holds the same result as the original future if it completed successfully. If it did not then the partial function argument is applied to the Throwable which failed the original future.
I want to make an actor sleep for a while, specifically it should decide whether to sleep itself depending on a condition:
class MyActor extends Actor {
def receive {
case "doWork" => doWork()
}
def doWork(): Unit = {
// doing some work
val condition = calculateCondition
if (condition) {
// sleep for 5 seconds
// Thread.sleep(5000)
}
}
}
I'm pretty much sure it's not a good thing to call Thread.sleep(5000) inside an actor and there should be another way. Therefore, how do I make it sleep?
I would look to do this using changes of state/behaviour for the Actor. Akka gives you a couple of means of doing this: you can implement a full-on state machine, or make use of context.become (and mix in akka.actor.Stash), and have the actor pass (scheduled) messages to itself. The former feels like overkill for this case, so here is how I would look to code it up:
import akka.actor._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
class MySleepyActor(duration: FiniteDuration = (5 seconds)) extends Actor with Stash {
import context._
override def preStart() { become(running) }
def receive = PartialFunction.empty
def running: Actor.Receive = {
case "doWork" =>
if (doWork()) {
scheduleReactivate
become(paused)
}
case "wakeUp" => // already awake
}
def paused: Actor.Receive = {
case "doWork" => stash()
case "wakeUp" =>
unstashAll()
become(running)
}
def scheduleReactivate: Unit = {
system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(duration, self, "wakeUp")
}
def doWork(): Boolean = {
// doing some work, then:
calculateCondition
}
}
Note: I have not tested this code! Should give you some ideas to work with, though.