6:32 p.m.
Imagine the use case when sending response does not happen from IO or
worker thread, but instead originates as a part of asynchronous event
handling in an application thread.
Below is a code snippet for a simple timer use case where response is meant
to be sent in 5 seconds after receiving a request. This solution is put
here just to illustrate the point, it does NOT work for the obvious reason
that we'll cover later:
final Undertow undertow = Undertow.builder()
.addHttpListener(9090, "localhost")
.setHandler(new HttpHandler() {
public void handleRequest(final HttpServerExchange
exchange) throws Exception {
new Timer().schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
exchange.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE, "text/plain");
exchange.getResponseSender().send("Returned in
5 seconds");
}
}, 5000);
}
}).build();
undertow.start();
This handler is implemented incorrectly because exchange will end right
after handleRequest method is called.
In order to fix this we can use dispatching (only implementation of
handleRequest method is shown):
public void handleRequest(final HttpServerExchange exchange) throws
Exception {
if (exchange.isInIoThread()) {
exchange.dispatch(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
new Timer().schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
Connectors.executeRootHandler(new HttpHandler()
{
public void
handleRequest(HttpServerExchange exchange) throws Exception {
exchange.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE, "text/plain");
exchange.getResponseSender().send("Returned in 5 seconds");
}
}, exchange);
}
}, 5000);
}
});
}
}
Please pay attention that the requirement here is not to use dumb blocking
in the work thread (like Thread.sleep(5000)) but rely on asynchronous event
handling instead.
I would appreciate if someone can answer the following questions:
- Are there any pitfalls with the working dispatch/executeRootHandler
solution mentioned above?
- Is there a simpler and more elegant way to achieve the same?
--
Vladimir Tsukur
Software Architect, Design Engineer and Scrum Master
6:42 p.m.
This handler is implemented incorrectly because exchange will end right
after handleRequest method is called.
In order to fix this we can use dispatching (only implementation of
handleRequest method is shown):
public void handleRequest(final HttpServerExchange exchange) throws
Exception {
if (exchange.isInIoThread()) {
exchange.dispatch(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
new Timer().schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
Connectors.executeRootHandler(new
HttpHandler() {
public void
handleRequest(HttpServerExchange exchange) throws Exception {
exchange.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE, "text/plain");
exchange.getResponseSender().send("Returned in 5 seconds");
}
}, exchange);
}
}, 5000);
}
});
}
}
Please pay attention that the requirement here is not to use dumb
blocking in the work thread (like Thread.sleep(5000)) but rely on
asynchronous event handling instead.
I would appreciate if someone can answer the following questions:
You don't need the isInIoThread() check, otherwise this handler will do
nothing if an earlier handler dispatched (e.g. a security handler that
needed to do a blocking LDAP lookup).
* Are there any pitfalls with the working
dispatch/executeRootHandler
solution mentioned above?
No, this is the correct way to do it. Undertow's exchange is not thread
safe (as making it thread safe seriously degrades performance by an
order of magnitude). Instead multi-threading is implemented by having a
safe hand off point (the dispatch() method), which basically allows a
thread to hand off to another thread when it is done, so only one thread
'owns' the exchange at a time.
You can just call the dispatch() method with no arguments to stop the
exchange ending, but if your async task finished before the call stack
returns then you will have two threads active in the exchange, which
will cause all kinds of potential problems (this is not going to happen
with a 5000ms delay, but with a 1ms delay it will).
* Is there a simpler and more elegant way to achieve the same?
I assume you are not actually dealing with timers and this was just an
example, but if you do want to schedule a task (like a timeout for
instance) you can schedule it using
exchange.getIoThread().executeAfter(), which will run the timed task in
the IO thread.
Stuart
--
Vladimir Tsukur
Software Architect, Design Engineer and Scrum Master
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
3:19 a.m.
You don't need the isInIoThread() check, otherwise this handler will do
nothing if an earlier handler dispatched (e.g. a security handler that
needed to do a blocking LDAP lookup).
That is true, thanks for pointing it out.
I assume you are not actually dealing with timers and this was just an
example
Yes, timer was just an example. I am dealing with asynchronous client API
that is used from the handler.
Thanks a lot for the answer!
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> This handler is implemented incorrectly because exchange will end right
>> after handleRequest method is called.
>>
>> In order to fix this we can use dispatching (only implementation of
>> handleRequest method is shown):
>>
>> public void handleRequest(final HttpServerExchange exchange) throws
>> Exception {
>> if (exchange.isInIoThread()) {
>> exchange.dispatch(new Runnable() {
>> public void run() {
>> new Timer().schedule(new TimerTask() {
>> public void run() {
>> Connectors.executeRootHandler(new
>> HttpHandler() {
>> public void
>> handleRequest(HttpServerExchange exchange) throws Exception {
>>
>> exchange.getResponseHeaders().put(Headers.CONTENT_TYPE, "text/plain");
>>
>> exchange.getResponseSender().send("Returned in 5 seconds");
>> }
>> }, exchange);
>> }
>> }, 5000);
>> }
>> });
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Please pay attention that the requirement here is not to use dumb
>> blocking in the work thread (like Thread.sleep(5000)) but rely on
>> asynchronous event handling instead.
>>
>> I would appreciate if someone can answer the following questions:
>>
>
You don't need the isInIoThread() check, otherwise this handler will do
nothing if an earlier handler dispatched (e.g. a security handler that
needed to do a blocking LDAP lookup).
>
> * Are there any pitfalls with the working dispatch/executeRootHandler
>> solution mentioned above?
>>
>
> No, this is the correct way to do it. Undertow's exchange is not thread
> safe (as making it thread safe seriously degrades performance by an order
> of magnitude). Instead multi-threading is implemented by having a safe hand
> off point (the dispatch() method), which basically allows a thread to hand
> off to another thread when it is done, so only one thread 'owns' the
> exchange at a time.
>
> You can just call the dispatch() method with no arguments to stop the
> exchange ending, but if your async task finished before the call stack
> returns then you will have two threads active in the exchange, which will
> cause all kinds of potential problems (this is not going to happen with a
> 5000ms delay, but with a 1ms delay it will).
>
> * Is there a simpler and more elegant way to achieve the same?
>>
>
> I assume you are not actually dealing with timers and this was just an
> example, but if you do want to schedule a task (like a timeout for
> instance) you can schedule it using
>
> exchange.getIoThread().executeAfter(), which will run the timed task in
> the IO thread.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>> --
>> Vladimir Tsukur
>> Software Architect, Design Engineer and Scrum Master
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> undertow-dev mailing list
>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>>
>
--
Vladimir Tsukur
Software Architect, Design Engineer and Scrum Master
3553
days inactive
3556
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Stuart Douglas -
Vladimir Tsukur