I am reading this blog post that claims Futures are not "functional" since they are just wrappers of side-effectful computations. For instance, they contain RPC calls, HTTP requests, etc. Is it correct ?
The blog post gives the following example:
def twoUsersFeed(a: UserHandle, b: UserHandle)
(implicit ec: ExecutionContext): Future[Html] =
for {
feedA <- usersFeed(a)
feedB <- usersFeed(b)
} yield feedA ++ feedB
you lose the desired property: consistent results (the referential transparency). Also you lose the property of making as few requests as possible. It is difficult to use multi-valued requests and have composable code.
I am afraid I don't get it. Could you explain how we lose the consistent result in this case ?
The blog post fails to draw a proper distinction between Future itself and the way it's commonly used, IMO. You could write pure-functional code with Future, if you only ever wrote Futures that called pure, total functions; such code would be referentially transparent and "functional" in every remotely reasonable sense of the word.
What is true is that Futures give you limited control of side effects, if you use them with methods that have side effects. If you create a Futurewrapping webClient.get, then creating that Future will send a HTTP call. But that's not a fact about Future, that's a fact about webClient.get!
There is a grain of truth in this blog post. Separating expressing your computation from executing it, completely, via e.g. the Free monad, can result in more efficient and more testable code. E.g. you can create a "query language", where you express an operation like "fetch the profile photos of all the mutual friends of A and B" without actually running it. This makes it easier to test if your logic is correct (because it's very easy to make e.g. a test implementation that can "run" the same queries - or even just inspect the "query object" directly) and, as I think the blog post is trying to suggest, means you could e.g. combine multiple requests to fetch the same profile. (This isn't even purely a functional-programming concern - some OO books have the idea of a "command pattern" - though IME functional programming tools like for/yield syntax make it much easier to work in this way). Whereas if all you have is a fetchProfile method that, when run, immediately fires off a HTTP request, then if your code logic requests the same profile twice, there's no way to avoid fetching the same profile twice.
But that isn't really about Future per se, and IMO this blog post is more confusing than helpful.
Related
I'm having hard time understanding what value effect systems, like ZIO or Cats Effect.
It does not make code readable, e.g.:
val wrappedB = for {
a <- getA() // : ZIO[R, E, A]
b <- getB(a) // : ZIO[R, E, B]
} yield b
is no more readable to me than:
val a = getA() // : A
val b = getB(a) // : B
I could even argue, that the latter is more straight forward, because calling a function executes it, instead of just creating an effect or execution pipeline.
Delayed execution does not sound convincing, because all examples I've encountered so far are just executing the pipeline right away anyways. Being able to execute effects in parallel or multiple time can be achieved in simpler ways IMHO, e.g. C# has Parallel.ForEach
Composability. Functions can be composed without using effects, e.g. by plain composition.
Pure functional methods. In the end the pure instructions will be executed, so it seems like it's just pretending DB access is pure. It does not help to reason, because while construction of the instructions is pure, executing them is not.
I may be missing something or just downplaying the benefits above or maybe benefits are bigger in certain situations (e.g. complex domain).
What are the biggest selling points to use effect systems?
Because it makes it easy to deal with side effects. From your example:
a <- getA() // ZIO[R, E, A] (doesn't have to be ZIO btw)
val a = getA(): A
The first getA accounts in the effect and the possibility of returning an error, a side effect. This would be like getting an A from some db where the said A may not exist or that you lack permission to access it. The second getA would be like a simple def getA = "A".
How do we put these methods together ? What if one throws an error ? Should we still proceed to the next method or just quit it ? What if one blocks your thread ?
Hopefully that addresses your second point about composability. To quickly address the rest:
Delayed execution. There are probably two reasons for this. The first is you actually don't want to accidentally start an execution. Or just because you write it it starts right away. This breaks what the cool guys refer to as referential transparency. The second is concurrent execution requires a thread pool or execution context. Normally we want to have a centralized place where we can fine tune it for the whole app. And when building a library we can't provide it ourselves. It's the users who provide it. In fact we can also defer the effect. All you do is define how the effect should behave and the users can use ZIO, Monix, etc, it's totally up to them.
Purity. Technically speaking wrapping a process in a pure effect doesn't necessarily mean the underlying process actually uses it. Only the implementation knows if it's really used or not. What we can do is lift it to make it compatible with the composition.
what makes programming with ZIO or Cats great is when it comes to concurrent programming. They are also other reasons but this one is IMHO where I got the "Ah Ah! Now I got it".
Try to write a program that monitor the content of several folders and for each files added to the folders parse their content but not more than 4 files at the same time. (Like the example in the video "What Java developpers could learn from ZIO" By Adam Fraser on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpkMojvz24 .
I mean this in ZIO is really easy to write :)
The all idea behind the fact that you combine data structure (A ZIO is a data structure) in order to make bigger data structure is so easy to understand that I would not want to code without it for complex problems :)
The two examples are not comparable since an error in the first statement will mark as faulty the value equal to the objectified sequence in the first form while it will halt the whole program in the second. The second form shall then be a function definition to properly encapsulate the two statements, followed by an affectation of the result of its call.
But more than that, in order to completely mimic the first form, some additional code has to be written, to catch exceptions and build a true faulty result, while all these things are made for free by ZIO...
I think that the ability to cleanly propagate the error state between successive statements is the real value of the ZIO approach. Any composite ZIO program fragment is then fully composable itself.
That's the main benefit of any workflow based approach, anyway.
It is this modularity which gives to effect handling its real value.
Since an effect is an action which structurally may produce errors, handling effects like this is an excellent way to handle errors in a composable way. In fact, handling effects consists in handling errors !
I need to add a WebSocket-to-TCP proxy to my Play 2.3 application, but while the outgoing TCP connection using Akka I/O supports back-pressure, I don't see anything for the WebSocket. There's clearly no support in the actor-based API, but James Roper says:
Iteratees handle this by design, you can't feed a new element into an
iteratee until last future it returns has been redeemed, because you
don't have a reference to it until then.
However, I don't see what he's referring to. Iteratee.foreach, as used in the examples, seems too simple. The only futures I see in the iteratee API are for completing the result of the computation. Should I be completing a Future[Unit] for each message or what?
Iteratee.foldM lets to pass a state along to each step, much like the regular fold operation, and return a future. If you do not have such a state you can just pass Unit and it will behave as a foreach that will not accept the next step until the future completes.
Here is an example of a utility function that does exactly that:
def foreachM[E](f: E => Future[Unit])(implicit ec: ExecutionContext): Iteratee[E, Unit] =
Iteratee.foldM[E, Unit](Unit)((_, e) => f(e))
Iteratee is not the same as Iterator. An Iteratee does indeed inherently support back-pressure (in fact you'll find yourself with the opposite problem - by default they don't do any buffering (at least within the pipeline - of course async sockets still have receive buffers), so you sometimes have to add an explicit buffering step to an enumerator/iteratee pipeline to get reasonable performance). The examples look simple but that just means the framework is doing what a framework does and making things easy. If you're doing a significant amount of work, or making async calls, in your handlers, then you shouldn't use the simple Iteratee.foreach, but instead use an API that accepts a Future-based handler; if you're blocking within an Iteratee then you block the whole thing, waste your threads, and defeat the point of using them at all.
While re-reading scala.lan.org's page detailing Future here, I have stumbled up on the following sentence:
In the event that some of the callbacks never complete (e.g. the callback contains an infinite loop), the other callbacks may not be executed at all. In these cases, a potentially blocking callback must use the blocking construct (see below).
Why may the other callbacks not be executed at all? I may install a number of callbacks for a given Future. The thread that completes the Future, may or may not execute the callbacks. But, because one callback is not playing footsie, the rest should not be penalized, I think.
One possibility I can think of is the way ExecutionContext is configured. If it is configured with one thread, then this may happen, but that is a specific behaviour and a not generally expected behaviour.
Am I missing something obvious here?
Callbacks are called within an ExecutionContext that has an eventually limited number of threads - if not by the specific context implementation, then by the underlying operating system and/or hardware itself.
Let's say your system's limit is OS_LIMIT threads. You create OS_LIMIT + 1 callbacks. From those, OS_LIMIT callbacks immediately get a thread each - and none ever terminate.
How can you guarantee that the remaining 1 callback ever gets a thread?
Sure, there could be some detection mechanisms built into the Scala library, but it's not possible in the general case to make an optimal implementation: maybe you want the callback to run for a month.
Instead (and this seems to be the approach in the Scala library), you could provide facilities for handling situations that you, the developer, know are risky. This removes the element of surprise from the system.
Perhaps most importantly - it enables the developer to "bake in" the necessary information about handler/task characteristics directly into his/her program, rather than relying on some obscure piece of language functionality (which may change from version to version).
I'm building a library that, as part of its functionality, makes HTTP requests. To get it to work in the multiple environments it'll be deployed in I'd like it to be able to work with or without Futures.
One option is to have the library parametrise the type of its response so you can create an instance of the library with type Future, or an instance with type Id, depending on whether you are using an asynchronous HTTP implementation. (Id might be an Identity monad - enough to expose a consistent interface to users)
I've started with that approach but it has got complicated. What I'd really like to do instead is use the Future type everywhere, boxing synchronous responses in a Future where necessary. However, I understand that using Futures will always entail some kind of threadpool. This won't fly in e.g. AppEngine (a required environment).
Is there a way to create a Future from a value that will be executed on the current thread and thus not cause problems in environments where it isn't possible to spawn threads?
(p.s. as an additional requirement, I need to be able to cross build the library back to Scala v2.9.1 which might limit the features available in scala.concurrent)
From what I understand you wish to execute something and then wrap the result with Future. In that case, you can always use Promise
val p = Promise[Int]
p success 42
val f = p.future
Hence you now have a future wrapper containing the final value 42
Promise is very well explained here .
Take a look at Scalaz version of Future trait. That's based on top of Trampoline mechanism which will be executing by the current thread unless fork or apply won't be called + that completely removes all ExecutionContext imports =)
Beginning in Scala and reading about Either I naturally comparing new concepts to something I know (in this case from Java). Are there any differences from the concept of checked exceptions and Either?
In both cases
the possibility of failure is explicitly annotated in the method (throws or returning Either)
the programmer can handle the error case directly when it occurs or move it up (returning again an Either)
there is a way to inform the caller about the reason of the error
I suppose one uses for-comprehensions on Either to write code as there would be no error similar to checked exceptions.
I wonder if I am the only beginner who has problems to see the difference.
Thanks
Either can be used for more than just exceptions. For example, if you were to have a user either type input for you or specify a file containing that input, you could represent that as Either[String, File].
Either is very often used for exception handling. The main difference between Either and checked exceptions is that control flow with Either is always explicit. The compiler really won't let you forget that you are dealing with an Either; it won't collect Eithers from multiple places without you being aware of it, everything that is returned must be an Either, etc.. Because of this, you use Either not when maybe something extraordinary will go wrong, but as a normal part of controlling program execution. Also, Either does not capture a stack trace, making it much more efficient than a typical exception.
One other difference is that exceptions can be used for control flow. Need to jump out of three nested loops? No problem--throw an exception (without a stack trace) and catch it on the outside. Need to jump out of five nested method calls? No problem! Either doesn't supply anything like this.
That said, as you've pointed out there are a number of similarities. You can pass back information (though Either makes that trivial, while checked exceptions make you write your own class to store any extra information you want); you can pass the Either on or you can fold it into something else, etc..
So, in summary: although you can accomplish the same things with Either and checked exceptions with regards to explicit error handling, they are relatively different in practice. In particular, Either makes creating and passing back different states really easy, while checked exceptions are good at bypassing all your normal control flow to get back, hopefully, to somewhere that an extraordinary condition can be sensibly dealt with.
Either is equivalent to a checked exception in terms of the return signature forming an exclusive disjunction. The result can be a thrown exception X or an A. However, throwing an exception isn't equivalent to returning one – the first is not referentially transparent.
Where Scala's Either is not (as of 2.9) equivalent is that a return type is positively biased, and requires effort to extract/deconstruct the Exception, Either is unbiased; you need to explicitly ask for the left or right value. This is a topic of some discussion, and in practice a bit of pain – consider the following three calls to Either producing methods
for {
a <- eitherA("input").right
b <- eitherB(a).right
c <- eitherC(b).right
} yield c // Either[Exception, C]
you need to manually thread through the RHS. This may not seem that onerous, but in practice is a pain and somewhat surprising to new-comers.
Yes, Either is a way to embed exceptions in a language; where a set of operations that can fail can throw an error value to some non-local site.
In addition to the practical issues Rex mentioned, there's some extra things you get from the simple semantics of an Either:
Either forms a monad; so you can use monadic operations over sets of expressions that evaluate to Either. E.g. for short circuiting evaluation without having to test the result
Either is in the type -- so the type checker alone is sufficient to track incorrect handling of the value
Once you have the ability to return either an error message (Left s) or a successful value Right v, you can layer exceptions on top, as just Either plus an error handler, as is done for MonadError in Haskell.