2:02 p.m.
Hi guys,
Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous handlers?
So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish undertow's
worker thread to do something while it's waiting for request completion
after a `dispatch` in my handler.
Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's IOFuture so I
may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method which
just
changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I may just set that
flag and then complete my request totally asynchronously. Though that
method is marked deprecated without an alternative - other versions also
wait for a `Runnable`.
--
Thanks,
Pavel
12:21 a.m.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous handlers?
So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish undertow's
worker thread to do something while it's waiting for request completion
after a `dispatch` in my handler.
Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's IOFuture so I
may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method which just
changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I may just set that
flag and then complete my request totally asynchronously. Though that
method is marked deprecated without an alternative - other versions also
wait for a `Runnable`.
In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it has
been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version that
takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it will run the
runnable in a worker thread.
Stuart
--
Thanks,
Pavel
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
9:36 a.m.
What do you mean exactly by "not thread safe"?
It's my understanding that you'd use dispatch() in the handler, and then
proceed processing on the other thread. Is the problem that both your
own "worker" code and the parent http handlers could interact with the
exchange concurrently, which is solved by the dispatch(Executor,
Runnable) methods by delaying execution until the current handler is done?
yawkat
On 10/24/19 12:21 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com
<mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous
handlers?
So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish
undertow's worker thread to do something while it's waiting for
request completion after a `dispatch` in my handler.
Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's
IOFuture so I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method
which just changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I
may just set that flag and then complete my request totally
asynchronously. Though that method is marked deprecated without an
alternative - other versions also wait for a `Runnable`.
In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it has
been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
that takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it will
run the runnable in a worker thread.
Stuart
--
Thanks,
Pavel
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
1:45 a.m.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:38, Jonas Konrad <me(a)yawk.at> wrote:
What do you mean exactly by "not thread safe"?
It's my understanding that you'd use dispatch() in the handler, and then
proceed processing on the other thread. Is the problem that both your
own "worker" code and the parent http handlers could interact with the
exchange concurrently, which is solved by the dispatch(Executor,
Runnable) methods by delaying execution until the current handler is done?
Exactly this. Undertow avoids any synchronisation on the exchange, but
instead enforces thread safety by ensuring that only a single thread is
active at any point with a hand off mechanism.
In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of dispatch()
you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just run your task
when the handler chain is done without handing off to a 'real' executor. In
your case though it sounds like you actually want a real executor so just
dispatch with the executor you want to use.
Stuart
yawkat
On 10/24/19 12:21 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous
> handlers?
> So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish
> undertow's worker thread to do something while it's waiting for
> request completion after a `dispatch` in my handler.
>
> Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's
> IOFuture so I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
>
> From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method
> which just changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I
> may just set that flag and then complete my request totally
> asynchronously. Though that method is marked deprecated without an
> alternative - other versions also wait for a `Runnable`.
>
>
> In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it has
> been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
>
> If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
> that takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it will
> run the runnable in a worker thread.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pavel
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
9:22 a.m.
Ahh, I hadn't thought about sameThreadExecutor. So the pattern would be
replacing:
exchange.dispatch();
doSomethingAsync(() -> /* complete exchange */)
with:
exchange.dispatch(Executors.sameThreadExecutor(), () ->
doSomethingAsync(() -> /* complete exchange */))
right? I think you should mention that in the documentation of
dispatch() - neither the reason why it is deprecated nor the replacement
was immediately obvious to me.
(I'm not the one who asked the original question, so I can't say whether
using an executor directly would be appropriate for Pavel, I'd just
wondered for a while why dispatch had been deprecated)
- yawkat
On 10/25/19 1:45 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:38, Jonas Konrad <me(a)yawk.at
<mailto:me@yawk.at>> wrote:
What do you mean exactly by "not thread safe"?
It's my understanding that you'd use dispatch() in the handler, and
then
proceed processing on the other thread. Is the problem that both your
own "worker" code and the parent http handlers could interact with the
exchange concurrently, which is solved by the dispatch(Executor,
Runnable) methods by delaying execution until the current handler is
done?
Exactly this. Undertow avoids any synchronisation on the exchange, but
instead enforces thread safety by ensuring that only a single thread is
active at any point with a hand off mechanism.
In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of
dispatch() you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just
run your task when the handler chain is done without handing off to a
'real' executor. In your case though it sounds like you actually want a
real executor so just dispatch with the executor you want to use.
Stuart
yawkat
On 10/24/19 12:21 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com
<mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>
> <mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com <mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous
> handlers?
> So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish
> undertow's worker thread to do something while it's waiting for
> request completion after a `dispatch` in my handler.
>
> Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's
> IOFuture so I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
>
> From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method
> which just changes internal flag. So, from what I can
understand I
> may just set that flag and then complete my request totally
> asynchronously. Though that method is marked deprecated
without an
> alternative - other versions also wait for a `Runnable`.
>
>
> In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(),
it has
> been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
>
> If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
> that takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as
it will
> run the runnable in a worker thread.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pavel
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
1:36 a.m.
In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of
dispatch() you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just run
your task when the handler chain is done without handing off to a 'real'
executor. In your case though it sounds like you actually want a real
executor so just dispatch with the executor you want to use.
But I don't want to block any of undertow threads, I wish to let it
continue processing other requests while my code works and trigger a
callback once my computation finishes...
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:47 AM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:38, Jonas Konrad <me(a)yawk.at> wrote:
> What do you mean exactly by "not thread safe"?
>
> It's my understanding that you'd use dispatch() in the handler, and then
> proceed processing on the other thread. Is the problem that both your
> own "worker" code and the parent http handlers could interact with the
> exchange concurrently, which is solved by the dispatch(Executor,
> Runnable) methods by delaying execution until the current handler is done?
>
Exactly this. Undertow avoids any synchronisation on the exchange, but
instead enforces thread safety by ensuring that only a single thread is
active at any point with a hand off mechanism.
In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of dispatch()
you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just run your task
when the handler chain is done without handing off to a 'real' executor. In
your case though it sounds like you actually want a real executor so just
dispatch with the executor you want to use.
Stuart
>
> yawkat
>
> On 10/24/19 12:21 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com
> > <mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous
> > handlers?
> > So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish
> > undertow's worker thread to do something while it's waiting for
> > request completion after a `dispatch` in my handler.
> >
> > Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's
> > IOFuture so I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
> >
> > From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method
> > which just changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I
> > may just set that flag and then complete my request totally
> > asynchronously. Though that method is marked deprecated without an
> > alternative - other versions also wait for a `Runnable`.
> >
> >
> > In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it has
> > been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
> >
> > If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
> > that takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it
> will
> > run the runnable in a worker thread.
> >
> > Stuart
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Pavel
> > _______________________________________________
> > undertow-dev mailing list
> > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > undertow-dev mailing list
> > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
_______________________________________________
undertow-dev mailing list
undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
--
Thanks,
Pavel
11:18 p.m.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 at 10:37, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of
dispatch() you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just run
your task when the handler chain is done without handing off to a 'real'
executor. In your case though it sounds like you actually want a real
executor so just dispatch with the executor you want to use.
But I don't want to block any of undertow threads, I wish to let it
continue processing other requests while my code works and trigger a
callback once my computation finishes...
sure, just don't block in that executor. Basically have your handler be
empty, except for a dispatch to SameThreadExecutor, and put the code that
delegates to ZIO in the runnable.
Basically this just moves all your logic out of undertow's handler chain,
so you know that there are no thread safety issues.
Stuart
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:47 AM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:38, Jonas Konrad <me(a)yawk.at> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean exactly by "not thread safe"?
>>
>> It's my understanding that you'd use dispatch() in the handler, and then
>> proceed processing on the other thread. Is the problem that both your
>> own "worker" code and the parent http handlers could interact with the
>> exchange concurrently, which is solved by the dispatch(Executor,
>> Runnable) methods by delaying execution until the current handler is
>> done?
>>
>
> Exactly this. Undertow avoids any synchronisation on the exchange, but
> instead enforces thread safety by ensuring that only a single thread is
> active at any point with a hand off mechanism.
>
> In general any time you would like to use the no arg version of
> dispatch() you should use SameThreadExecutor instead, which will just run
> your task when the handler chain is done without handing off to a 'real'
> executor. In your case though it sounds like you actually want a real
> executor so just dispatch with the executor you want to use.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>
>> yawkat
>>
>> On 10/24/19 12:21 AM, Stuart Douglas wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com
>> > <mailto:pshirshov@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous
>> > handlers?
>> > So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish
>> > undertow's worker thread to do something while it's waiting for
>> > request completion after a `dispatch` in my handler.
>> >
>> > Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's
>> > IOFuture so I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
>> >
>> > From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method
>> > which just changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I
>> > may just set that flag and then complete my request totally
>> > asynchronously. Though that method is marked deprecated without an
>> > alternative - other versions also wait for a `Runnable`.
>> >
>> >
>> > In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it
>> has
>> > been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
>> >
>> > If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
>> > that takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it
>> will
>> > run the runnable in a worker thread.
>> >
>> > Stuart
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thanks,
>> > Pavel
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > undertow-dev mailing list
>> > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:undertow-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > undertow-dev mailing list
>> > undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> undertow-dev mailing list
>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
--
Thanks,
Pavel
1:11 a.m.
Hi!
In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it
has
been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
I understand but I have a specific need. So I'm wondering if there are
better alternatives.
If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
that
takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it will run the
runnable in a worker thread.
In fact I want/need a bit more complex thing.
I'm running undertow under Scala within ZIO. Essentially ZIO is a powerful
asynchronous framework and it has a lot of async primitives.
So, I wish to efficiently integrate ZIO with undertow. From all I can
understand at the moment I have only one option to do it - let undertow
block in it's thread pool until my call finishes.
But I want it not to block and just provide me a callback which I may
invoke once my logic finishes. And/or a way to return a
promise/future/IOFuture back to undertow.
In ideal world I would like to wrap undertow within my runtime so it
doesn't manage it's own threadpools (like I can do with http4s) but I guess
it's not possible because all the code is monomorphic (and it's java code).
From what I can see there is no way to provide an async request
handler at
the moment. Maybe I miss something? Or maybe it's possible to add
it?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:21 PM Stuart Douglas <sdouglas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 01:23, Pavel Shirshov <pshirshov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Could you give me a hint if there is a way to write asynchronous handlers?
>> So, I have my own asynchronous runtime (namely ZIO) and I wish undertow's
>> worker thread to do something while it's waiting for request completion
>> after a `dispatch` in my handler.
>>
>> Is there an API allowing me to return a Future or undertow's IOFuture so
>> I may write an adaptor for my primitives?..
>>
>> From what I can see there is that zero-arg `.dispatch()` method which
>> just changes internal flag. So, from what I can understand I may just set
>> that flag and then complete my request totally asynchronously. Though that
>> method is marked deprecated without an alternative - other versions also
>> wait for a `Runnable`.
>>
>
In general you should not used the no arg version of dispatch(), it
has
> been deprecated as it is not thread safe.
>
If you want to just dispatch some work to a worker using the version
that
> takes a runnable sounds like exactly what you are after, as it will run
the
> runnable in a worker thread.
>
> Stuart
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Pavel
>> _______________________________________________
>> undertow-dev mailing list
>> undertow-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>
>
--
Thanks,
Pavel
1966
days inactive
1970
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jonas Konrad -
Pavel Shirshov -
Stuart Douglas