I have a fairly involved download process I want to perform in a background thread. There are some natural dependencies between steps in this process. For example, I need to complete the downloads of both Table A and Table B before setting the relationships between them (I'm using Core Data).
I thought first of putting each dependent step in its own NSOperation, then creating a dependency between the two operations (i.e. download the two tables in one operation, then set the relationship between them in the next, dependent operation). However, each NSOperation requires it's own NSManagedContext, so this is no good. I don't want to save the background context until both tables have been downloaded and their relationships set.
I've therefore concluded this should all occur inside one NSOperation, and that I should use notifications or some other mechanism to call the dependent method when all the conditions for running it have been met.
I'm an iOS beginner, however, so before I venture down this path, I wouldn't mind advice on whether I've reached the right conclusion.
Given your validation requirements, I think it will be easiest inside of one operation, although this could turn into a bit of a hairball as far as code structure goes.
You'll essentially want to make two wire fetches to get the entire dataset you require, then combine the data and parse it at one time into Core Data.
If you're going to use the asynchronous API's this essentially means structuring a class that waits for both operations to complete and then launches another NSOperation or block which does the parse and relationship construction.
Imagine this order of events:
User performs some action (button tap, etc.)
Selector for that action fires two network requests
When both requests have finished (they both notify a common delegate) launch the parse operation
Might look something like this in code:
- (IBAction)someAction:(id)sender {
//fire both network requests
request1.delegate = aDelegate;
request2.delegate = aDelegate;
}
//later, inside the implementation of aDelegate
- (void)requestDidComplete... {
if (request1Finished && request2Finished) {
NSOperation *parse = //init with fetched data
//launch on queue etc.
}
}
There's two major pitfalls that this solution is prone to:
It keeps the entire data set around in memory until both requests are finished
You will have to constantly switch on the specific request that's calling your delegate (for error handling, success, etc.)
Basically, you're implementing operation dependencies on your own, although there might not be a good way around that because of the structure of NSURLConnection.
Related
When you use Node's EventEmitter, you subscribe to a single event. Your callback is only executed when that specific event is fired up:
eventBus.on('some-event', function(data){
// data is specific to 'some-event'
});
In Flux, you register your store with the dispatcher, then your store gets called when every single event is dispatched. It is the job of the store to filter through every event it gets, and determine if the event is important to the store:
eventBus.register(function(data){
switch(data.type){
case 'some-event':
// now data is specific to 'some-event'
break;
}
});
In this video, the presenter says:
"Stores subscribe to actions. Actually, all stores receive all actions, and that's what keeps it scalable."
Question
Why and how is sending every action to every store [presumably] more scalable than only sending actions to specific stores?
The scalability referred to here is more about scaling the codebase than scaling in terms of how fast the software is. Data in flux systems is easy to trace because every store is registered to every action, and the actions define every app-wide event that can happen in the system. Each store can determine how it needs to update itself in response to each action, without the programmer needing to decide which stores to wire up to which actions, and in most cases, you can change or read the code for a store without needing to worrying about how it affects any other store.
At some point the programmer will need to register the store. The store is very specific to the data it'll receive from the event. How exactly is looking up the data inside the store better than registering for a specific event, and having the store always expect the data it needs/cares about?
The actions in the system represent the things that can happen in a system, along with the relevant data for that event. For example:
A user logged in; comes with user profile
A user added a comment; comes with comment data, item ID it was added to
A user updated a post; comes with the post data
So, you can think about actions as the database of things the stores can know about. Any time an action is dispatched, it's sent to each store. So, at any given time, you only need to think about your data mutations a single store + action at a time.
For instance, when a post is updated, you might have a PostStore that watches for the POST_UPDATED action, and when it sees it, it will update its internal state to store off the new post. This is completely separate from any other store which may also care about the POST_UPDATED event—any other programmer from any other team working on the app can make that decision separately, with the knowledge that they are able to hook into any action in the database of actions that may take place.
Another reason this is useful and scalable in terms of the codebase is inversion of control; each store decides what actions it cares about and how to respond to each action; all the data logic is centralized in that store. This is in contrast to a pattern like MVC, where a controller is explicitly set up to call mutation methods on models, and one or more other controllers may also be calling mutation methods on the same models at the same time (or different times); the data update logic is spread through the system, and understanding the data flow requires understanding each place the model might update.
Finally, another thing to keep in mind is that registering vs. not registering is sort of a matter of semantics; it's trivial to abstract away the fact that the store receives all actions. For example, in Fluxxor, the stores have a method called bindActions that binds specific actions to specific callbacks:
this.bindActions(
"FIRST_ACTION_TYPE", this.handleFirstActionType,
"OTHER_ACTION_TYPE", this.handleOtherActionType
);
Even though the store receives all actions, under the hood it looks up the action type in an internal map and calls the appropriate callback on the store.
Ive been asking myself the same question, and cant see technically how registering adds much, beyond simplification. I will pose my understanding of the system so that hopefully if i am wrong, i can be corrected.
TLDR; EventEmitter and Dispatcher serve similar purposes (pub/sub) but focus their efforts on different features. Specifically, the 'waitFor' functionality (which allows one event handler to ensure that a different one has already been called) is not available with EventEmitter. Dispatcher has focussed its efforts on the 'waitFor' feature.
The final result of the system is to communicate to the stores that an action has happened. Whether the store 'subscribes to all events, then filters' or 'subscribes a specific event' (filtering at the dispatcher). Should not affect the final result. Data is transferred in your application. (handler always only switches on event type and processes, eg. it doesn't want to operate on ALL events)
As you said "At some point the programmer will need to register the store.". It is just a question of fidelity of subscription. I don't think that a change in fidelity has any affect on 'inversion of control' for instance.
The added (killer) feature in facebook's Dispatcher is it's ability to 'waitFor' a different store, to handle the event first. The question is, does this feature require that each store has only one event handler?
Let's look at the process. When you dispatch an action on the Dispatcher, it (omitting some details):
iterates all registered subscribers (to the dispatcher)
calls the registered callback (one per stores)
the callback can call 'waitfor()', and pass a 'dispatchId'. This internally references the callback of registered by a different store. This is executed synchronously, causing the other store to receive the action and be updated first. This requires that the 'waitFor()' is called before your code which handles the action.
The callback called by 'waitFor' switches on action type to execute the correct code.
the callback can now run its code, knowing that its dependancies (other stores) have already been updated.
the callback switches on the action 'type' to execute the correct code.
This seems a very simple way to allow event dependancies.
Basically all callbacks are eventually called, but in a specific order. And then switch to only execute specific code. So, it is as if we only triggered a handler for the 'add-item' event on the each store, in the correct order.
If subscriptions where at a callback level (not 'store' level), would this still be possible? It would mean:
Each store would register multiple callbacks to specific events, keeping reference to their 'dispatchTokens' (same as currently)
Each callback would have its own 'dispatchToken'
The user would still 'waitFor' a specific callback, but be a specific handler for a specific store
The dispatcher would then only need to dispatch to callbacks of a specific action, in the same order
Possibly, the smart people at facebook have figured out that this would actually be less performant to add the complexity of individual callbacks, or possibly it is not a priority.
I'm trying to build a simple orchestration engine in a functional test like the following:
object Engine {
def orchestrate(apiSequence : Seq[Any]) {
val execUnitList = getExecutionUnits(apiSequence) // build a specific list
schedule(execUnitList) // call multiple APIs
}
In the methods called underneath (getExecutionUnits, and schedule), the pattern I've applied is one where I incrementally build a list (hence, not a val but a var), iterate over the list and call sepcific APIs and run some custom validation on each one.
I'm aware that an object in scala is sort of equivalent to a singleton (so there's only one instance of Engine, in my case). I'm wondering if this is an appropriate pattern if I'm expecting 100's of invocations of the orchestrate method concurrently. I'm not managing any other internal variables within the Engine object and I'm simply acting on the provided arguments in the method. Assuming that the schedule method can take up to 10 seconds, I'm worried about the behavior when it comes to concurrent access. If client1, client2 and client3 call this method at the same time, will 2 of the clients get queued up and be blocked my the current client being processed?
Is there a safer idiomatic way to handle the use-case? Do you recommend using actors to wrap up the "orchestrate" method to handle concurrent requests?
Edit: To clarify, it is absolutely essential the the 2 methods (getExecutionUnits and schedule) and called in sequence. Moreover, the schedule method in turn calls multiple APIs (anywhere between 1 to 10) and it is important that they too get executed in sequence. As of right now I have a simply for loop that tackles 1 Api at a time, waits for the response, then moves onto the next one if appropriate.
I'm not managing any other internal variables within the Engine object and I'm simply acting on the provided arguments in the method.
If you are using any vars in Engine at all, this won't work. However, from your description it seems like you don't: you have a local var in getExecutionUnits method and (possibly) a local var in schedule which is initialized with the return value of getExecutionUnits. This case should be fine.
If client1, client2 and client3 call this method at the same time, will 2 of the clients get queued up and be blocked my the current client being processed?
No, if you don't add any synchronization (and if Engine itself has no state, you shouldn't).
Do you recommend using actors to wrap up the "orchestrate" method to handle concurrent requests?
If you wrap it in one actor, then the clients will be blocked waiting while the engine is handling one request.
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.
I'm implementing multithreaded core data downloader.
I have a problem with doubling objects while saving objects with unique string attribute in Entity.
If 2 threads are downloading from the same url simultaneously (f.e., updater-timer fires and application enters foreground - so user calls update method), I cant check existanse of object with unique attribute value in persistant store, so objects are doubling.
How can I avoid doubling objects and what is the best solution in terms of performance?
description: (sorry, I cant post images yet)
http://i.stack.imgur.com/yMBgQ.png
Another approach would be to perform the download/save within an NSOperation, and prior to adding an operation to the queue, you could check to see if there was an existing operation to download that URL in the NSOperationQueue.
The advantage of this approach is that you don't download any more data than is necessary.
I've run into this before and it's a tricky problem.
I solved it by performing by downloads in separate background threads (the same as you are doing now) but all code data write operations happen on a global NSOperation queue with numConcurrentOperations set to 1. When each background download was complete it created an NSOperation and put it onto that queue.
Good: Very simple thread safety - the NSOperationQueue ensured that only one thread was writing to CoreData at any one point.
Bad: Slight hit in terms of performance because the Core Data operations were working in series, not in parallel. This can be mitigated by doing any calculations needed on the data in the download background thread and doing as little as possible in the Core Data operation.
I have a Silverlight app where I've implemented the M-V-VM pattern so my actual UI elements (Views) are separated from the data (Models). Anyways, at one point after the user has gone and done some selections and possible other input, I'd like to asyncronously go though the model and scan it and compile a list of optiions that the user has changed (different from the default), and eventually update that on the UI as a summary, but that would be a final step.
My question is that if I use a background worker to do this, up until I actually want to do the UI updates, I just want to read current values in one of my models, I don't have to synchronize access to the model right? I'm not modifying data just reading current values...
There are Lists (ObservableCollections), so I will have to call methods of those collections like "_ABCCollection.GetSelectedItems()" but again I'm just reading, I'm not making changes. Since they are not primitives, will I have to synchronize access to them for just reads, or does that not matter?
I assume I'll have to sychronize my final step as it will cause PropertyChanged events to fire and eventually the Views will request the new data through the bindings...
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.
You are correct. You can read from your Model objects and ObservableCollections on a worker thread without having a cross-thread violation. Getting or setting the value of a property on a UI element (more specifically, an object that derives from DispatcherObject) must be done on the UI thread (more specifically, the thread on which the DispatcherObject subclass instance was created). For more info about this, see here.