I have a scala actor that does some work whenever a client requests it. When, and only when no client is active, I would like the Actor to do some background processing.
What is the easiest way to do this? I can think of two approaches:
Spawn a new thread that times out and wakes up the actor periodically. A straight forward approach, but I would like to avoid creating another thread (to avoid the extra code, complexity and overhead).
The Actor class has a reactWithin method, which could be used to time out from the actor itself. But the documentation says the method doesn't return. So, I am not sure how to use it.
Edit; a clarification:
Assume that the background task can be broken down into smaller units that can be independently processed.
Ok, I see I need to put my 2 cents. From the author's answer I guess the "priority receive" technique is exactly what is needed here. It is possible to find discussion in "Erlang: priority receive question here at SO". The idea is to accept high priority messages first and to accept other messages only in absence of high-priority ones.
As Scala actors are very similar to Erlang, a trivial code to implement this would look like this:
def act = loop {
reactWithin(0) {
case msg: HighPriorityMessage => // process msg
case TIMEOUT =>
react {
case msg: HighPriorityMessage => // process msg
case msg: LowPriorityMessage => // process msg
}
}
}
This works as follows. An actor has a mailbox (queue) with messages. The receive (or receiveWithin) argument is a partial function and Actor library looks for a message in a mailbox which can be applied to this partial function. In our case it would be an object of HighPriorityMessage only. So, if Actor library finds such a message, it applies our partial function and we are processing a message of high priority. Otherwise, reactWithin with timeout 0 calls our partial function with argument TIMEOUT and we immediately try to process any possible message from the queue (as it waits for a message we cannot exclude a possiblity to get HighPriorityMessage).
It sounds like the problem you describe is not well suited to the actor sub-system. An Actor is designed to sequentially process its message queue:
What should happen if the actor is performing the background work and a new task arrives?
An actor can only find out about this is it is continuously checking its mailbox as it performs the background task. How would you implement this (i.e. how would you code the background tasks as a unit of work so that the actor could keep interrupting and checking the mailbox)?
What should happen if the actor has many background tasks in its mailbox in front of the main task?
Do these background tasks get thrown away, or sent to another actor? If the latter, how can you prevent CPU time being given to that actor to perform the tasks?
All in all, it sounds much more like you need to explore some grid-style software that can run in the background (like Data Synapse)!
Just after asking this question I tried out some completely whacky code and it seems to work fine. I am not sure though if there is a gotcha in it.
import scala.actors._
object Idling
object Processor extends Actor {
start
import Actor._
def act() = {
loop {
// here lie dragons >>>>>
if (mailboxSize == 0) this ! Idling
// <<<<<<
react {
case msg:NormalMsg => {
// do the normal work
reply(answer)
}
case Idling=> {
// do the idle work in chunks
}
case msg => println("Rcvd unknown message:" + msg)
}
}
}
}
Explanation
Any code inside the argument of loop but before the call to react seems to get called when the Actor is about to wait for a message. I am sending a Idling message to self here. In the handler for this message I ensure that the mailbox-size is 0, before doing the processing.
Related
I'm working on implementing a small language to send tasks to execution and control execution flow. After the sending a task to my system, the user gets a future (on which it can call a blocking get() or flatMap() ). My question is: is it OK to send futures in Akka messages?
Example: actor A sends a message Response to actor B and Response contains a future among its fields. Then at some point A will fulfill the promise from which the future was created. After receiving the Response, B can call flatMap() or get() at any time.
I'm asking because Akka messages should be immutable and work even if actors are on different JVMs. I don't see how my example above can work if actors A and B are on different JVMs. Also, are there any problems with my example even if actors are on same JVM?
Something similar is done in the accepted answer in this stackoverflow question. Will this work if actors are on different JVMs?
Without remoting it's possible, but still not advisable. With remoting in play it won't work at all.
If your goal is to have an API that returns Futures, but uses actors as the plumbing underneath, one approach could be that the API creates its own actor internally that it asks, and then returns the future from that ask to the caller. The actor spawned by the API call is guaranteed to be local to the API instance and can communicate with the rest of the actor system via the regular tell/receive mechanism, so that there are no Futures sent as messages.
class MyTaskAPI(actorFactory: ActorRefFactory) {
def doSomething(...): Future[SomethingResult] = {
val taskActor = actorFactory.actorOf(Props[MyTaskActor])
taskActor ? DoSomething(...).mapTo[SomethingResult]
}
}
where MyTaskActor receives the DoSomething, captures the sender, sends out the request for task processince and likely becomes a receiving state for SomethingResult which finally responds to the captured sender and stops itself. This approach creates two actors per request, one explicitly, the MyTaskActor and one implicitly, the handler of the ask, but keeps all state inside of actors.
Alternately, you could use the ActorDSL to create just one actor inline of doSomething and use a captured Promise for completion instead of using ask:
class MyTaskAPI(system: System) {
def doSomething(...): Future[SomethingResult] = {
val p = Promise[SomethingResult]()
val tmpActor = actor(new Act {
become {
case msg:SomethingResult =>
p.success(msg)
self.stop()
}
}
system.actorSelection("user/TaskHandler").tell(DoSomething(...), tmpActor)
p.future
}
}
This approach is a bit off the top of my head and it does use a shared value between the API and the temp actor, which some might consider a smell, but should give an idea how to implement your workflow.
If you're asking if it's possible, then yes, it's possible. Remote actors are basically interprocess communication. If you set everything up on both machines to a state where both can properly handle the future, then it should be good. You don't give any working example so I can't really delve deeper into it.
In our project, we need to do a task which listens to a queue and process the coming messages in a loop, which is never finished. The code is looking like:
def processQueue = {
while(true) {
val message = queue.next();
processMessage(message) match {
case Success(_) => ...
case _ => ...
}
}
}
So we want to run it in a separate thread.
I can imagine two ways to do it, one is to use Thread as what we do in Java:
new Thread(new Runnable() { processQueue() }).start();
Another way is use Future (as we did now):
Future { processQueue }
I just wonder if is it correct to use Future in this case, since as I know(which might be wrong), Future is mean to be running some task which will finish or return a result in some time of the future. But our task is never finished.
I also wonder what's the best solution for this in scala.
A Future is supposed to a value that will eventually exist, so I don't think it makes much sense to create one that will never be fulfilled. They're also immutable, so passing information to them is a no-no. And using some externally referenced queue within the Future sounds like dark road to go down.
What you're describing is basically an Akka Actor, which has it's own FIFO queue, with a receive method to process messages. It would look something like this:
import akka.actor._
class Processor extends Actor {
def receive = {
case msg: String => processMessage(msg) match {
case Success(x) => ...
case _ => ...
}
case otherMsg # Message(_, _) => {
// process this other type of message..
}
}
}
Your application could create a single instance of this Processor actor with an ActorSystem (or some other elaborate group of these actors):
val akkaSystem = ActorSystem("myActorSystem")
val processor: ActorRef = akkaSystem.actorOf(Props[Processor], "Processor")
And send it messages:
processor ! "Do some work!"
In short, it's a better idea to use a concurrency framework like Akka than to create your own for processing queues on separate threads. The Future API is most definitely not the way to go.
I suggest perusing the Akka Documentation for more information.
If you are just running one thread (aside from the main thread), it won't matter. If you do this repeatedly, and you really want lots of separate threads, you should use Thread since that is what it is for. Futures are built with the assumption that they'll terminate, so you might run out of pool threads.
I am using an Akka FSM actor. A simplified version of my actor has two states: Idle and Processing. The actor receives a msg containing data, causing it to transition from Idle to Processing. The onTransition function kicks off a long running computation that uses the data and sends the processed data back to the actor:
def onTransition{
case Idle -> Processing => future {
longRunning(nextStateData)
}.map{
result => self ! result
}
}
My main question is: assuming no event occurs that causes my actor to perform another state transition, are there any guarantees that I will not receive the processed data in the Idle state? If longRunning is not actually long running and finishes immediately, can I get the result before the transition is complete?
Is there a way to start the computation on entering the Processing state instead?
Side question: Is nextStateData a mutable variable? Should I not being using it in the future the way I am above?
EDIT:
The main point of my question is about what state the actor can receive the result msg in. After thinking about this, I am pretty sure that even if the computation finishes and the result msg is sent during the state transition, the actor will not pop the msg off its queue until after the transition is complete. Because of this, I can be assured that the actor will not get the result message in the Idle state. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I am currently evaluating javascript scripts using Rhino in a restful service. I wish for there to be an evaluation time out.
I have created a mock example actor (using scala 2.10 akka actors).
case class Evaluate(expression: String)
class RhinoActor extends Actor {
override def preStart() = { println("Start context'"); super.preStart()}
def receive = {
case Evaluate(expression) ⇒ {
Thread.sleep(100)
sender ! "complete"
}
}
override def postStop() = { println("Stop context'"); super.postStop()}
}
Now I run use this actor as follows:
def run {
val t = System.currentTimeMillis()
val system = ActorSystem("MySystem")
val actor = system.actorOf(Props[RhinoActor])
implicit val timeout = Timeout(50 milliseconds)
val future = (actor ? Evaluate("10 + 50")).mapTo[String]
val result = Try(Await.result(future, Duration.Inf))
println(System.currentTimeMillis() - t)
println(result)
actor ! PoisonPill
system.shutdown()
}
Is it wise to use the ActorSystem in a closure like this which may have simultaneous requests on it?
Should I make the ActorSystem global, and will that be ok in this context?
Is there a more appropriate alternative approach?
EDIT: I think I need to use futures directly, but I will need the preStart and postStop. Currently investigating.
EDIT: Seems you don't get those hooks with futures.
I'll try and answer some of your questions for you.
First, an ActorSystem is a very heavy weight construct. You should not create one per request that needs an actor. You should create one globally and then use that single instance to spawn your actors (and you won't need system.shutdown() anymore in run). I believe this covers your first two questions.
Your approach of using an actor to execute javascript here seems sound to me. But instead of spinning up an actor per request, you might want to pool a bunch of the RhinoActors behind a Router, with each instance having it's own rhino engine that will be setup during preStart. Doing this will eliminate per request rhino initialization costs, speeding up your js evaluations. Just make sure you size your pool appropriately. Also, you won't need to be sending PoisonPill messages per request if you adopt this approach.
You also might want to look into the non-blocking callbacks onComplete, onSuccess and onFailure as opposed to using the blocking Await. These callbacks also respect timeouts and are preferable to blocking for higher throughput. As long as whatever is way way upstream waiting for this response can handle the asynchronicity (i.e. an async capable web request), then I suggest going this route.
The last thing to keep in mind is that even though code will return to the caller after the timeout if the actor has yet to respond, the actor still goes on processing that message (performing the evaluation). It does not stop and move onto the next message just because a caller timed out. Just wanted to make that clear in case it wasn't.
EDIT
In response to your comment about stopping a long execution there are some things related to Akka to consider first. You can call stop the actor, send a Kill or a PosionPill, but none of these will stop if from processing the message that it's currently processing. They just prevent it from receiving new messages. In your case, with Rhino, if infinite script execution is a possibility, then I suggest handling this within Rhino itself. I would dig into the answers on this post (Stopping the Rhino Engine in middle of execution) and setup your Rhino engine in the actor in such a way that it will stop itself if it has been executing for too long. That failure will kick out to the supervisor (if pooled) and cause that pooled instance to be restarted which will init a new Rhino in preStart. This might be the best approach for dealing with the possibility of long running scripts.
When process a message, is it possible to send out an message to another actor and wait for that actor to reply, and consume the replied message and then continue, like the following, is it doable?
val lineMap=HashMap[String,Int]()
receive {
case bigTaskMap=>
for (line <-readSomeFile){
if(lineMap.get(line)==None){
anotherActor!line // that actor will reply a hashmap which contain the key for line
receive {
case x:HashMap => lineMap=x
}
}
lineMap.get(line) // use that value to do further work
}
}
This answer is for Akka (old Scala actors are deprecated in Scala 2.10).
Yes. You can use ask to get a future (rather than creating a fully-fledged actor yourself) and then call onComplete on the Future returned to set an action which will be executed when the Future's value (or an error) becomes available. Don't worry about how quickly the Future might yield a value - it doesn't matter, because the onComplete action will be executed even if the Future is already available when onComplete is called!
However, be very careful: you should not directly access any of the state (i.e. the variables) in the containing actor in your action(s), because the onComplete action(s) will not run in the same execution context as the actor (i.e. they could be running at the same time as the original actor is processing a message). Instead, send further messages back to the original actor, or forward them on.
In fact, in some cases you may find the simplest thing to do is simply to send a message, and let the original actor handle the reply. become and unbecome may help here. However, again, be careful if using become, that in the actor's new behaviour, it doesn't drop "ordinary" messages that should be handled in the ordinary way.