I have implemented a Notify/Listen mechanism, so when a special request is sent to the web server, using notify I can notify the workers (in Python) that there's a pending request waiting to be processed.
The implementation works fine, but the problem is that if the workers server is restarting, the notification gets lost, since at that particular time there's no listener.
I can implement a service like MQRabbit or similar, but my needs are so simple that implement such a monster is too much.
Is there any way, a configuration variable perhaps, that can give some persistence to the notification mechanism?
Thanks in advance
I don't think there is a way to persist notification channels, but you can simply store the pending requests to a table, and have the worker check for any missed work on startup.
Either a timestamp or a pending/completed flag would work, depending on what kind of work it's doing.
For consistency, you can have the NOTIFY fire from an INSERT trigger on the queue table, and have the worker always check for any remaining work (not just a specific request) when notified.
Related
I am working on a chat client. To get new messages (or post new one) I have to perform GET (or POST) request. All new messages are stored via core data. At the moment I don't know how to implement it in most optimal way.
My thoughts:
On view controller init stage create background thread which will periodically checks for new messages (if conversation is active - with short period, if not - with period about 60 secs). If there are new messages, we store them in DB and signal delegate that there are new messages to display.
Friend suggested to use performSelector afterDelay, but I don't understand how to use it in my app.
Something else?
Thanks in advance.
Don't use performSelector afterDelay. Using NSTimer is much better (as the trigger for starting the next download). Also, use NSOperationQueue to manage your background tasks. Create yourself a custom NSOperation that you can instantiate and it will complete your request process. When you create a new operation to check for new messages, check if one is already in progress (there is no point having multiple requests in progress at the same time).
Other notes:
Make sure you consider the threading with regards to the Core Data store (having the operation call back to the main thread with the results will probably be easiest as the result data will always be relatively small).
If you have lots of messages being sent and you want to show constant status (like Skype does, showing you when someone is typing) you would need to use sockets to keep the connection alive the whole time (the cost of new connections each time would be prohibitive).
I've got a Backbone web application that talks to a RESTful PHP server. For PUT and POST it matters in which order the requests arrive at the server and for GET it matters in which order the responses arrive at the client.
The web application does not need to be used concurrently by multiple users, but what might happen is that the user changes its name twice really fast. Then the order in which the server processes PUT /name/Ann and PUT /name/Bea determines whether the name is set to Ann or Bea.
Backbone.Safesync and Backbone.Sync.AjaxQueue are two libraries that try to solve this problem. Doesn't Safesync only solve the problem with GET? Sync.AjaxQueue is outdated, but might serve as inspiration to implement a custom queued sync function. Making sync synchronous would solve the problem. If a request is only sent after the previous response is received, then only one request is processed at a time.
Any advice on how to proceed?
BTW: I don't think using PATCH requests would solve anything, because in my example the same attribute is changed twice.
There's a few ways to solve this, here's two:
add a timestamp to all requests, store it in the DB as "modified" and let the server check whether the timestamp of the new request is later than the one in the DB in order to be valid
use Promises to delay the second request from being made before the first one is responded on, there's a promise/deferred mechanism built into jquery, but you can also use a 3rd party one, for instance Q or when
If you can afford the delay, an easy approach is to set the async option to false when you call whatever method you're calling that results in the Backbone.sync. For example, in the appropriate model(s) simply override the default sync method to include the additional option.
I just got asked to reduce the traffic made by my GWT app. There is one method that checks for status.
This method is an asynchronous call wrapped in a Timer. I know web apps are stateless and all that, but I do wonder if there is some other way to do this, or if everyone has a Timer wrapped around a call when they need this kind of behaviour.
You can check out gwteventservice. It claims to have a way to push server events and notify the client.
I have a feeling they might be implemented as long running (hanging) client to server RPC calls which time out after an interval (say 20sec), and then are re-made. The server returns the callback if an event happens in the meanwhile.
I haven't used it personally but know of people using it to push events to the client. Have a look at the docs . If my assumption is correct, the idea is to send an RPC call to the server which does not return (hangs). If an event happens on the server, the server responds and that RPC call returns with the event. If there is no event, the call will time out in 20 seconds. Then a new call is made to the server which hangs in the same way until there is an event.
What this achieves is that it reduces the number of calls to the server to either one for each event (if there is one), or a call once every 20 seconds (if there isn't one). It looks like the 20 sec interval can be configured.
I imagine that if there is no event the amount of data sent back will be minimal - it might be possible to cancel the callback entirely, or have it fail without data transfer, but I don't really know.
Here is another resource on ServerPush - which is likely what's implemented by gwteventservice.
Running on Google app engine you could use they Channel technology
http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/appengine/docs/java/channel/overview.html
If you need the client to get the status from the server, then you pretty much have to make a call to the server to get it's status.
You could look at reducing the size of some of your messages
You could wind back the timer so the status call goes out less often
You could "optimise" so that the timer gets reset when some other client/server IO happens (i.e. if the server replies you know it is ok, so you don't need to send the next status request).
In the reply to few questions, Jonathan Oliver mentions using an AsynchronousCommitDispatcher to handle multiple unit of works.
I am still in the design stage of my project (and still learning CRQS and ES) and have a few questions:
Would I create an AsynchronousCommitDispatcher for each aggregate root that will be affected by a domain event being raised?
What happens if I have some sort of locking mechanism where the dispatched event cannot make a change to an aggregate root if it is locked by another user? Does AsynchronousCommitDispatcher retry if there is a lock?
What if the system goes down before an domain event is handled? Unless I persist the fact that it has not been handled, wont it be lost?
My initial understanding was that the types of Dispatchers were for messaging across the wire or for updating the read model. Here we are using it to update another aggregate root. I this correct?
TIA
JD
The commit dispatchers are all about pushing events onto the wire after everything has been completely successfully. No, you don't need more than one dispatcher for a given endpoint. The AsyncCommitScheduler (which uses a dispatcher) is multi-threaded and can dispatch more than one event at a time.
A dispatcher is not about handling an incoming message--that's what your message handlers are for. The dispatcher just sends once everything is complete.
Yes dispatchers can help update read models, but not in the way you think. Instead, the dispatchers just push the messages into your messaging framework (MSMQ, RabbitMQ, or, at a higher level, NServiceBus/MassTransit). Then once a message is received at your view models, you update your view model tables accordingly.
I'm currently learning the WF framework, so bear with me; mostly I'm looking for where to start looking, not necessarily a direct answer. I just can't seem to figure out how to begin researching what I'd like in The Google.
Let's say I have a simple one-step workflow (much more complicated than that, but for simplicity's sake). This workflow needs to watch a certain record in the database to see when it changes. I don't have the capability to "push" via a trigger from the database when the row changes, so I need to poll for it every so often.
This workflow needs to be persisted to the database to be durable against restarts and whatnot as this is a long-running workflow. I'm trying to figure out the best way to get it to check every 3 minutes or so and also persist to the database. Do the persistence capabilities of the framework allow for that? It seems to be time-based. And since the workflow won't be reawakened by an external event, how does it reload from the database and check the same step it did previously again? Does it attempt the last unfulfilled activity automatically upon reloading?
Do "while" activities with a delay attached to it work at all, or can it be handled solely through the persistence services?
I'm not sure what you mean by "handled soley through persistence services"? Persistence refers only to the storing of an idle workflow.
You could have a Delay and a Code activity in a Sequence in a While loop. When in the Delay the workflow will go idle and may be persisted if necessary. However depending on how much state is needed when persisting the workflow and/or how many such workflows you would have running at any one time may mean that a leaner approach is necessary.
A leaner approach would be to externalise the DB watching and have some "DB watching" workflow service raise an event when the desired change has occured. This service would be added to Workflow runtime.
To that end you need a service contract which is defined by an Inteface with the [ExternalDataExchange] attribute. This interface in turn defines an event that the service will raise when the desired DB change is detected. It also defines a method that a Workflow can call to specify what what change this service should be looking for. The method should accept an instance GUID so that the requesting instance can be found when the DB change is detected.
In the workflow you use a CallExternalMethodActivity to call this services method. You then flow to a HandleExternalEventActivity which listen for the event. At this point the workflow will go idle and can be persisted. It will remain there until the service raises the event.