I have a backend app writed in Scala Play. Because I have a realtime implementation using Akka Actors with data stored in a Redis server, I want as my each backend instance (deployed on centos servers) to be a Publisher and in same time a Subscriber to Redis service. Why this? Because a 3rd party app will send requests to my backend to update the data from Redis, and I want that all actors from all instances to push data to clients (frontend) indifferent on which backend instance is redirected this request (a load balancer is used there).
So, when instance1 will publish on Redis, I want that all subscribers(instance2, instance3, even instance1 because I said each instance must be pub/sub) to push data to clients.
I created an object with a Publisher and a Subscriber client and I was expecting that these will have a singleton behavior. But, for an unknown reason, over the night I see that my instances are unsubscribed from the Redis server without a message. I think this, because in the next day, my Redis service have 0 subscribers. I don't know if I have a bad implementation there or just Redis kill the connections after some time.
RedisPubSubServer.scala (In facts, here are just 2 Akka Actors which take RedisClient as params)
class Subscriber(client: RedisClient) extends Actor {
var callback: PubSubMessage => Any = { m => }
implicit val timeout = Timeout(2 seconds)
override def receive: Receive = {
case Subscribe(channel) => client.subscribe(channel)(callback)
case Register(cb) => callback = cb; self ? true
case Unsubscribe(channel) => client.unsubscribe(channel); self ? true
}
}
class Publisher(client: RedisClient) extends Actor {
implicit val timeout = Timeout(2 seconds)
override def receive: Receive = {
case Publish(channel, msg) => client.publish(channel, msg); self ? true
}
}
RedisPubSubClient.scala (here I create the Publisher and Subscriber as singleton)
object Pub {
println("starting publishing service...")
val config = ConfigFactory.load.getObject("redis").toConfig
val client = new RedisClient(config.getString("master"), config.getInt("port"))
val system = ActorSystem("RedisPublisher")
val publisher = system.actorOf(Props(new Publisher(client)))
def publish(channel: String, message: String) =
publisher ! Publish(channel, message)
}
object Sub {
val client = new RedisClient(config.getString("master"), config.getInt("port"))
val system = ActorSystem("RedisSubscriber")
val subscriber = system.actorOf(Props(new Subscriber(client)))
println("SUB Registering...")
subscriber ! Register(callback)
def sub(channel: String) = subscriber ! Subscribe(channel)
def unsub(channel: String) = subscriber ! Unsubscribe(channel)
def callback(msg: PubSubMessage) = {
msg match {
case S(channel, no) => println(s"subscribed to $channel and count $no")
case U(channel, no) => println(s"unsubscribed from $channel and count $no")
case M(channel, msg) => msg match {
case "exit" => client.unsubscribe()
case jsonString => // do the job
}
case E(e) => println(s"ERR = ${e.getMessage}")
}
}
}
and the RedisService
object RedisService {
val system = ActorSystem("RedisServiceSubscriber")
val subscriber = system.actorOf(Props(new Subscriber(client)))
subscriber ! Register(callback)
subscriber ! Subscribe("channelName")
// So, here I'm expecting that subscriber to have a life-cycle as the backend instance
}
from an api endpoint, I push data calling Pub publish method as:
def reloadData(request: AnyType) {
Pub.publish("channelName", requestAsString)
}
Can be possible as Publisher/Subscriber Actors to be killed after a while and due of that to throw in some errors for redis clients Pub/Sub?
For Publisher, I must say that I'm thinking to create the client each time when the api call is made, but for the Subscriber, I can not use another way that a singleton object which will listen the Redis entire life of the backend.
thanks
edit: used library:
"net.debasishg" %% "redisclient" % "3.41"
After some researches, I found another scala redis lib which seems to do exactly what I need in an easier maner
"com.github.etaty" %% "rediscala" % "1.9.0"
Related
In the current version of the Play Framework, there is no way to have the WebSocket connection to be persistent.
https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.8.x/ScalaWebSockets#Keeping-a-WebSocket-Alive
I have the following piece of code and the need for this WebSocket connection to be persistent.
class ProvisioningActor(sink: ActorRef) extends Actor {
private[this] val source = Observable.interval(appConfig.pingInterval).map(elem => elem.toInt)
private[this] val ping = Consumer.foreach[Int](x => self ! x)
private[this] val task = source.consumeWith(ping).runToFuture
override def receive: Receive = {
case jsValue: JsValue =>
logger.debug(s"Received OCPPCallRequest: \n ${Json.prettyPrint(jsValue)}")
jsValue.validate[OCPPCallRequest].asEither match {
case Right(ocppCall) => handleOCPPCallRequest(ocppCall).materialize.map {
case Failure(fail) => sink ! JsError(s"${fail.getMessage}")
case Success(succ) => sink ! Json.toJson(succ)
}
case Left(errors) =>
logger.error(s"Errors occurred when validating OCPPCallRequest: \n $errors")
sink ! Json.toJson(s"error -> ${errors.head._2}") // TODO: Work on this issue here on how we want to propagate errors
}
case x: Int =>
logger.debug(s"Elem: $x")
handleHeartBeatRequest(2, "HeartbeatRequest").materialize.map {
case Failure(fail) => sink ! JsError(s"${fail.getMessage}")
case Success(succ) => sink ! Json.toJson(succ)
}
case msg: Any =>
logger.warn(s"Received unknown message ${msg.getClass.getTypeName} that cannot be handled, " +
s"eagerly closing websocket connection")
task.cancel()
self ! PoisonPill
}
}
It kind of works be sending a heartbeat message back to the client. My question is:
Is this good enough for an implementation?
By default all WebSocket connections will be persistent and this may not be desired. So this has to be on a per connection basis. Correct?
Is there any other way that is advisable?
We use PlayFramework websockets for long running sessions, a busy server supports more than 1000 concurrent Websocket connections and lack of ping-pong packets causes idle websocket connections to be terminated by intermediate firewalls, proxies etc and also the play framework idleTimeout itself - play.server.https.idleTimeout.
Form PlayFramework v2.1(now with v2.8) we have been using Sockjs protocol, Play Sockjs - https://github.com/fdimuccio/play2-sockjs which uses a application layer heartbeat
https://github.com/fdimuccio/play2-sockjs/wiki/API-reference-for-0.5.x#configuring-sockjs-handler
package controllers
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import play.api.mvc._
import play.sockjs.api._
// mixin SockJSRouter trait with your controller
class SockJSController extends Controller with SockJSRouter {
// override this method to specify custom SockJSSettings
override protected val settings = SockJSSettings(websocket = false, heartbeat = 55 seconds)
// here goes the request handler
def sockjs = SockJS.accept[String, String] { request =>
...
}
}
We use 20s heartbeat in production which has proven very safe, each connection has the same heartbeat setting, which works well for our usecase.
This topic may be helpful: Play2.5 Java WebSockets
I am using Akka Cluster (version 2.4.10) with few nodes designated for "front-end" role and few others as "workers". The workers are on remote machines. The incoming work is distributed by the front-end actor to workers by round-robin routing. The issue is sending back the response from the "workers" back to the front-end actor. I can see that the work is getting completed by the workers. But the message sent by the workers to front-end does not reach and ends up as dead-letters. I see the below error in the log.
[Cluster-akka.actor.default-dispatcher-21] [akka://Cluster/deadLetters] Message [scala.collection.immutable.$colon$colon] from Actor[akka://Cluster/user] to Actor[akka://Cluster/deadLetters] was not delivered. [6] dead letters encountered.
I have seen this and I am following the same in my code. I have also seen this, but the solution suggested does not apply in this case, because I do not know the routees up-front. It comes through the configuration and it can change. The round-robin router configuration is as below.
akka.actor.deployment {
/frontEnd/hm = {
router = round-robin-group
nr-of-instances = 5
routees.paths = ["/user/hmWorker"]
cluster {
enabled = on
use-role = backend
allow-local-routees = on
}
}
}
The router is instantiated in front-end actor like below.
val router = context.actorOf(FromConfig.props(), name = "hm")
val controller = context.actorOf(Props(classOf[Controller], router))
The controller and the worker codes are below.
// Node 1 : Controller routes requests using round-robin
class Controller(router: ActorRef) extends Actor {
val list = List("a", "b") // Assume this is a big list
val groups = list.grouped(500)
override def receive: Actor.Receive = {
val futures = groups.map(grp => (router ? Message(grp)).mapTo[List[String]]))
val future = Future.sequence(futures).map(_.flatten)
val result = Await.result(future, 50 seconds)
println(s"Result is $result")
}
}
// Node 2
class Worker extends Actor {
override def receive: Actor.Receive = {
case Message(lst) =>
val future: Future[List[String]] = // Do Something asynchronous
future onComplete {
case Success(r) => sender.!(r)(context.parent) // This message is not delivered to Controller actor.
case Failure(th) => // Error handling
}
}
}
Please let me know what I am doing wrong here. Appreciate your help.
You shouldn't use sender() in the callback on a Future. By the time the callback is processed, the sender() is likely referring to something different than it was when you received the message.
Consider either saving the reference outside of the callback first like:
override def receive: Actor.Receive = {
case Message(lst) =>
val future: Future[List[String]] = // Do Something asynchronous
val replyTo: ActorRef = sender()
future onComplete {
case Success(r) => replyTo.!(r)(context.parent) // This message is not delivered to Controller actor.
case Failure(th) => // Error handling
}
}
Or even better, use the pipe pattern:
import akka.pattern.pipe
override def receive: Actor.Receive = {
case Message(lst) =>
val future: Future[List[String]] = // Do Something asynchronous
future.pipeTo(sender())
}
How to keep the client (web) connection in a memory variable and then send outgoing messages to the client (web) when needed?
I already have some simple code for pushing back message to the client once the server receives messages from the client. How to modify the code below for the outgoing messaging part?
implicit val actorSystem = ActorSystem("akka-system")
implicit val flowMaterializer = ActorMaterializer()
implicit val executionContext = actorSystem.dispatcher
val ip = "127.0.0.1"
val port = 32000
val route = get {
pathEndOrSingleSlash {
complete("Welcome to websocket server")
}
} ~
path("hello") {
get {
handleWebSocketMessages(echoService)
}
}
def sendMessageToClient(msg : String) {
// *** How to implement this?
// *** How to save the client connection when it is first connected?
// Then how to send message to this connection?
}
val echoService = Flow[Message].collect {
// *** Here the server push back messages when receiving msg from client
case tm : TextMessage => TextMessage(Source.single("Hello ") ++ tm.textStream)
case _ => TextMessage("Message type unsupported")
}
val binding = Http().bindAndHandle(route, ip, port)
You can look into pipelining the sink flow via .map call. Inside the .map call you can capture the value and then return the same message. For example:
Flow[Message].collect {
case tm : TextMessage =>
TextMessage(Source.single("Hello ") ++ tm.textStream.via(
Flow[String].map((message) => {println(message) /* capture value here*/; message})))
case _ => TextMessage("Message type unsupported")
}
Now, if your intention is to process those values and send out values later, what you want is not a single source-to-sink flow, but two separate streams for sink and source, for which you can use Flow.fromSinkAndSource e.g.
Flow.fromSinkAndSource[Message, Message](
Flow[Message].collect { /* capture values */},
// Or send stream to other sink for more processing
source
)
In all likelihood, this source will be either constructed out of graph DSL, a hand-rolled actor, or you can look into utilizing reusable helpers such as MergeHub.
I'm trying to write an Actor which connects to an Amazon Kinesis stream and then relays any messages received via Comet to a Web UI. I'm using Source.actorPublisher for this and using the json method with Comet in Play described here. I got the events working just fine using Source.tick(), but when I tried using an ActorPublisher, the Actor never seems to be sent any Request messages as expected. How are requests for data usually sent down an Akka flow? I'm using v2.5 of the Play Framework.
My controller code:
def subDeviceSeen(id: Id): Action[AnyContent] = Action {
val deviceSeenSource: Source[DeviceSeenMessage, ActorRef] = Source.actorPublisher(DeviceSeenEventActor.props)
Ok.chunked(deviceSeenSource
.filter(m => m.id == id)
.map(Json.toJson(_))
via Comet.json("parent.deviceSeen")).as(ContentTypes.JSON)
}
Am I doing anything obviously wrong in the above? Here is my Actor code:
object DeviceSeenEventActor {
def props: Props = Props[DeviceSeenEventActor]
}
class DeviceSeenEventActor extends ActorPublisher[DeviceSeenMessage] {
implicit val mat = ActorMaterializer()(context)
val log = Logging(context.system, this)
def receive: Receive = {
case Request => log.debug("Received request message")
initKinesis()
context.become(run)
case Cancel => context.stop(self)
}
def run: Receive = {
case vsm:DeviceSeenMessage => onNext(vsm)
log.debug("Received request message")
onCompleteThenStop() //we are currently only interested in one message
case _:Any => log.warning("Unknown message received by event Actor")
}
private def initKinesis() = {
//init kinesis, a worker is created and given a reference to this Actor.
//The reference is used to send messages to the actor.
}
}
The 'Received request message' log line is never displayed. Am I missing some implicit? There are no warnings or anything else obvious displayed in the play console.
The issue was that I was pattern matching on case Request => ... instead of case Request() => .... Since I didn't have a default case in my receive() method, the message was simply dropped by the Actor.
I have a WebSocket that clients can connect to I also have a stream of data using akka-streams. How can I make it that all clients get the same data. At the moment they seem to be racing for the data.
Thanks
One way you could do is is to have an actor that extends ActorPublisher and have it subscribe
to some message.
class MyPublisher extends ActorPublisher[MyData]{
override def preStart = {
context.system.eventStream.subscribe(self, classOf[MyData])
}
override def receive: Receive = {
case msg: MyData ⇒
if (isActive && totalDemand > 0) {
// Pushes the message onto the stream
onNext(msg)
}
}
}
object MyPublisher {
def props(implicit ctx: ExecutionContext): Props = Props(new MyPublisher())
}
case class MyData(data:String)
You can then use that actor as the source for the stream:
val dataSource = Source.actorPublisher[MyData](MyPublisher.props(someExcutionContext))
You can then create a flow from that datasource and apply a transform to convert the data into a websocket message
val myFlow = Flow.fromSinkAndSource(Sink.ignore, dataSource map {d => TextMessage.Strict(d.data)})
Then you can use that flow in your route handling.
path("readings") {
handleWebsocketMessages(myFlow)
}
From the processing of the original stream, you can then publish the data to the event stream and any instance of that actor will pick it up and put in onto the stream that their websocket is being served from.
val actorSystem = ActorSystem("foo")
val otherSource = Source.fromIterator(() => List(MyData("a"), MyData("b")).iterator)
otherSource.runForeach { msg ⇒ actorSystem.eventStream.publish(MyData("data"))}
Each socket will then have its own instance of the actor to provide it with data all coming from a single source.