I am creating a redis pubsub client in a try-catch block. In the try block, the client is initialised with a callback to forward messages to a client. If there's a problem sending the message to the client, an exception will be thrown, in which case I need to stop the redis client. Here's the code:
try {
val redisClient = RedisPubSub(
channels = Seq(currentUserId.toString),
patterns = Seq(),
onMessage = (pubSubMessage: PubSubMessage) => {
responseObserver.onValue(pubSubMessage.data)
}
)
}
catch {
case e: RuntimeException =>
// redisClient isn't defined here...
redisClient.unsubscribe(currentUserId.toString)
redisClient.stop()
messageStreamResult.complete(Try(true))
responseObserver.onCompleted()
}
The problem is that the redis client val isn't defined in the catch block because there may have been an exception creating it. I also can't move the try-catch block into the callback because there's no way (that I can find) of referring to the redisClient object from within the callback (this doesn't resolve).
To solve this I'm instantiating redisClient as a var outside the try-catch block. Then inside the try block I stop the client and assign a new redisPubSub (created as above) to the redisClient var. That's an ugly hack which is also error prone (e.g. if there genuinely is a problem creating the second client, the catch block will try to call methods on an erroneous object).
Is there a better way of writing this code so that I can correctly call stop() on the redisClient if an exception is raised when trying to send the message to the responseObserver?
Update
I've just solved this using promises. Is there a simpler way though?
That exception handler is not going to be invoked if there is a problem sending the message. It is for problems in setting up the client. This SO answer talks about handling errors when sending messages.
As for the callback referring to the client, I think you want to register the callback after creating the client rather than trying to pass the callback in when you create it. Here is some sample code from Debashish Ghosh that does this.
Presumably that callback is going to run in another thread, so if it uses redisClient you'll have to be careful about concurrency. Ideally the callback could get to the client object through some argument. If not, then perhaps using volatile would be the easiest way to deal with that, although I suspect you'd eventually get into trouble if multiple callbacks can fail at once. Perhaps use an actor to manage the client connection, as Debashish has done?
Related
I have some code that invokes persist from inside another persist event handler, something like:
persist(someClassInstance){ message =>
confirmDelivery(message.id)
//some code
start()
}
//Somewhere else in the code
def start(): Unit = {
log.info("Starting")
persist(someClassInstance){ message =>
deliver(destination, createMessage)
log.info("Started")
}
}
When I run my application I see the log message "Starting" but I never see the "Started". I am wondering if this happens because I'm invoking persist inside another persist. Is this something that shouldn't be done? The documentation is not very explicit about this case.
I'm using Akka version 2.4-M1 so I suppose this could be the source of the problem, however is seems more likely to me that this is simply something that should not be done.
Invoking persist from another persist will block the program.
The correct way is to send a message to self. And then in the code to handle that message perform the persist.
I implement a REST service using Spray.io framework. Such service must receive some "search" queries, process them and send result back to the client(s). The code that perfrom searching located in separate actor - SearchActor, so after receiving (JSON) query from user, i re-send (using ask pattern) this query to my SearchActor. But what i don't really understand it's how i must implement interaction between spray.io route actor and my SearchActor.
I see here several variants but which one is more correct and why?
Create one instance of SearchActor at startup and send every request to this actor
For every request create new instance of SearchActor
Create pool of SearchActor actors at startup and send requests to this pool
You're not forced to use the ask pattern. In fact, it will create a thread for each of your request and this is probably not what you want. I would recommend that you use a tell instead. You do this by spawning a new Actor for each request (less expensive than a thread), that has the RequestContext in one of its constructor fields. You will use this context to give the response back, typically with its complete method.
Example code.
class RESTActor extends HttpService {
val route = path("mypath") ~ post {
entity(as[SearchActor.Search]) { search => ctx =>
SearchActor(ctx) ! search
}
}
}
case class SearchActor(ctx: RequestContext) {
def receive = {
case msg: Search => //... search process
case msg: Result => ctx.complete(msg) // sends back reply
}
}
Variant #1 is out of question after the initial implementation - you would want to scale out, so single blocking actor is bad.
Variants #2 and #3 are not very different - creation of new actor is cheap and has minimal overhead. As your actors may die often (i.e. backend is not available), i would say that #2 is the way to go.
Concrete implementation idea is shown at http://techblog.net-a-porter.com/2013/12/ask-tell-and-per-request-actors/
My server application uses Scalatra, with json4s, and Akka.
Most of the requests it receives are POSTs, and they return immediately to the client with a fixed response. The actual responses are sent asynchronously to a server socket at the client. To do this, I need to getRemoteAddr from the http request. I am trying with the following code:
case class MyJsonParams(foo:String, bar:Int)
class MyServices extends ScalatraServlet {
implicit val formats = DefaultFormats
post("/test") {
withJsonFuture[MyJsonParams]{ params =>
// code that calls request.getRemoteAddr goes here
// sometimes request is null and I get an exception
println(request)
}
}
def withJsonFuture[A](closure: A => Unit)(implicit mf: Manifest[A]) = {
contentType = "text/json"
val params:A = parse(request.body).extract[A]
future{
closure(params)
}
Ok("""{"result":"OK"}""")
}
}
The intention of the withJsonFuture function is to move some boilerplate out of my route processing.
This sometimes works (prints a non-null value for request) and sometimes request is null, which I find quite puzzling. I suspect that I must be "closing over" the request in my future. However, the error also happens with controlled test scenarios when there are no other requests going on. I would imagine request to be immutable (maybe I'm wrong?)
In an attempt to solve the issue, I have changed my code to the following:
case class MyJsonParams(foo:String, bar:Int)
class MyServices extends ScalatraServlet {
implicit val formats = DefaultFormats
post("/test") {
withJsonFuture[MyJsonParams]{ (addr, params) =>
println(addr)
}
}
def withJsonFuture[A](closure: (String, A) => Unit)(implicit mf: Manifest[A]) = {
contentType = "text/json"
val addr = request.getRemoteAddr()
val params:A = parse(request.body).extract[A]
future{
closure(addr, params)
}
Ok("""{"result":"OK"}""")
}
}
This seems to work. However, I really don't know if it is still includes any bad concurrency-related programming practice that could cause an error in the future ("future" meant in its most common sense = what lies ahead :).
Scalatra is not so well suited for asynchronous code. I recently stumbled on the very same problem as you.
The problem is that scalatra tries to make the code as declarative as possible by exposing a dsl that removes as much fuss as possible, and in particular does not require you to explicitly pass data around.
I'll try to explain.
In your example, the code inside post("/test") is an anonymous function. Notice that it does not take any parameter, not even the current request object.
Instead, scalatra will store the current request object inside a thread local value just before it calls your own handler, and you can then get it back through ScalatraServlet.request.
This is the classical Dynamic Scope pattern. It has the advantage that you can write many utility methods that access the current request and call them from your handlers, without explicitly passing the request.
Now, the problem comes when you use asynchronous code, as you do.
In your case, the code inside withJsonFuture executes on another thread than the original thread that the handler was initially called (it will execute on a thread from the ExecutionContext's thread pool).
Thus when accessing the thread local, you are accessing a totally distinct instance of the thread local variable.
Simply put, the classical Dynamic Scope pattern is no fit in an asynchronous context.
The solution here is to capture the request at the very start of your handler, and then exclusively reference that:
post("/test") {
val currentRequest = request
withJsonFuture[MyJsonParams]{ params =>
// code that calls request.getRemoteAddr goes here
// sometimes request is null and I get an exception
println(currentRequest)
}
}
Quite frankly, this is too easy to get wrong IMHO, so I would personally avoid using Scalatra altogether if you are in an synchronous context.
I don't know Scalatra, but it's fishy that you are accessing a value called request that you do not define yourself. My guess is that it is coming as part of extending ScalatraServlet. If that's the case, then it's probably mutable state that it being set (by Scalatra) at the start of the request and then nullified at the end. If that's happening, then your workaround is okay as would be assigning request to another val like val myRequest = request before the future block and then accessing it as myRequest inside of the future and closure.
I do not know scalatra but at first glance, the withJsonFuture function returns an OK but also creates a thread via the future { closure(addr, params) } call.
If that latter thread is run after the OK is processed, the response has been sent and the request is closed/GCed.
Why create a Future to run you closure ?
if withJsonFuture needs to return a Future (again, sorry, I do not know scalatra), you should wrap the whole body of that function in a Future.
Try to put with FutureSupport on your class declaration like this
class MyServices extends ScalatraServlet with FutureSupport {}
I have a multithreaded Scala application and I have a shutdown hook that calls a shutdown() method on an object. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be reliable. Many times it fails to handle SIGINT and throws a NoClassDefFoundError on an anonymous function.
How do I make this shutdown handler more robust?
One suggestion: Rather than registering shutdown() hook directly, create a ShutdownManager object and have it register a shutdown() hook. Your application objects add themselves to the ShutdownManager which can then call some application object shutdown method, either using a trait or through a function object.
preload all the classes your hook needs with either:
Class.forName("YourObject") or Class clasz = YourObject.class
In the past few months, me and my colleagues have successfully built a server-side system for dispatching push notifications to iPhone devices. Basically, a user registers for these notifications via a RESTful webservice (Spray-Server, recently updated to use Spray-can as the HTTP layer), and the logic schedules one or multiple messages for dispatch in the future, using Akka's scheduler.
This system, as we built it, simply works: it can handle hundreds, maybe even thousands of HTTP requests a second, and can send out notifications at a rate of 23,000 per second - possibly even more if we reduce log output, add multiple notification sender actors (and thus more connections with Apple), and there might be some optimization to be done in the Java library we use (java-apns).
This question is about how to do it Right(tm). My colleague, much more knowledgeable about Scala and actor-based systems in general, noted how the application isn't a 'pure' actor-based system - and he's right. What I'm wondering now is how to do it Right.
At the moment, we have a single Spray HttpService actor, not subclassed, that is initialized with a set of directives that outlines our HTTP service logic. Currently, very much simplified, we have directives like this:
post {
content(as[SomeBusinessObject]) { businessObject => request =>
// store the business object in a MongoDB back-end and wait for the ID to be
// returned; we want to send this back to the user.
val businessObjectId = persister !! new PersistSchedule(businessObject)
request.complete("/businessObject/%s".format(businessObjectId))
}
}
Now, if I get this right, 'waiting for a response' from an actor is a no-no in actor-based programming (plus the !! is deprecated). What I believe is the 'correct' way to do it is to pass the request object over to the persister actor in a message, and have it call request.complete as soon as it's received a generated ID from the back-end.
I have rewritten one of the routes in my application to do just this; in the message that is sent to the actor, the request object / reference is also sent. This seems to work like it's supposed to:
content(as[SomeBusinessObject]) { businessObject => request =>
persister ! new PersistSchedule(request, businessObject)
}
My main concern here is that we seem to pass the request object to the 'business logic', in this case the persister. The persister now gets additional responsibility, i.e. call request.complete, and knowledge about what system it runs in, i.e. that it's part of a webservice.
What would be the correct way to handle a situation like this, so that the persister actor becomes unaware of it being part of a http service, and doesn't need to know how to output the generated ID?
I'm thinking that the request should still be passed to the persister actor, but instead of the persister actor calling request.complete, it sends a message back to the HttpService actor (a SchedulePersisted(request, businessObjectId) message), which simply calls request.complete("/businessObject/%s".format(businessObjectId)). Basically:
def receive = {
case SchedulePersisted(request, businessObjectId) =>
request.complete("/businessObject/%s".format(businessObjectId))
}
val directives = post {
content(as[SomeBusinessObject]) { businessObject => request =>
persister ! new PersistSchedule(request, businessObject)
}
}
Am I on the right track with this approach?
A smaller secondary spray-server specific question, is it okay to subclass HttpService and override the receive method, or will I break things that way? (I have no clue about subclassing actors, or how to pass unrecognized messages to the 'parent' actor)
Final question, is passing the request object / reference around in actor messages that may pass throughout the entire application an okay approach, or is there a better way to 'remember' what request should be sent a response after flowing the request through the application?
In regards to your first question, yes, you are on the right track. (Although I would also like to see some alternative ways to handle this sort of issue).
One suggestion I have is to insulate the persister actor from knowing about requests at all. You can pass the request as an Any type. Your matcher in your service code can automagically cast the cookie back into a Request.
case class SchedulePersisted(businessObjectId: String, cookie: Any)
// in your actor
override def receive = super.receive orElse {
case SchedulePersisted(businessObjectId, request: Request) =>
request.complete("/businessObject/%s".format(businessObjectId))
}
In regards to your second question, actor classes are really no different than regular classes. But you do need to make sure you call the superclass's receive method, so that it can handle its own messages. I had some other ways of doing this in my original answer, but I think I prefer chaining partial functions like this:
class SpecialHttpService extends HttpService {
override def receive = super.receive orElse {
case SpecialMessage(x) =>
// handle special message
}
}
You could also use the produce directive. It allows you to decouple the actual marshalling from the request completion:
get {
produce(instanceOf[Person]) { personCompleter =>
databaseActor ! ShowPersonJob(personCompleter)
}
}
The produce directive in this example extracts a function Person => Unit that you can use to complete the request transparently deep within the business logic layer, which should not be aware of spray.
https://github.com/spray/spray/wiki/Marshalling-Unmarshalling