The Wear OS tiles example is great, not so much of an issue but how would one start the background media service that play the songs selected in the primary app, when every I try to start the service, I get the following error. The is no UI thread to reference and the documentation only has to methods for onclick, LoadAction and LaunchAction.
override fun onTileRequest(request: TileRequest) = serviceScope.future {
when(request.state!!.lastClickableId){
"play"-> playClicked()
}....
suspend fun playClicked(){
try {
// Convert the asynchronous callback to a suspending coroutine
suspendCancellableCoroutine<Unit> { cont ->
mMediaBrowserCompat = MediaBrowserCompat(
applicationContext, ComponentName(applicationContext, MusicService::class.java),
mMediaBrowserCompatConnectionCallback, null
)
mMediaBrowserCompat!!.connect()
}
}catch (e:Exception){
e.printStackTrace()
} finally {
mMediaBrowserCompat!!.disconnect()
}
}
ERROR
java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create handler inside thread Thread[DefaultDispatcher-worker-1,5,main] that has not called Looper.prepare()
serviceScope is running on Dispatchers.IO, you should use withContext(Dispatchers.Main) when making any calls to MediaBrowserCompat.
Responding to the answer above, the serviceScope.future creates a CoroutineScope that will cause the future returned to the service to wait for all child jobs to complete.
If you want to have it run detached from the onTileRequest call, you can run the following, which will launch a new job inside the application GlobalScope and let the onTileRequest return immediately.
"play" -> GlobalScope.launch {
}
The benefit to this is that you don't throw a third concurrency model into the mix, ListenableFutures, Coroutines, and now Handler. LF and Coroutines are meant to avoid you having to resort to a third concurrency option.
Thanks Yuri that worked but, it ended up blocking the UI thread, the solution that is work is below
fun playClicked(){
mainHandler.post(playSong)
}
private val playSong: Runnable = object : Runnable {
#RequiresApi(Build.VERSION_CODES.N)
override fun run() {
mMediaBrowserCompat = MediaBrowserCompat(
applicationContext, ComponentName(applicationContext, MusicaWearService::class.java),
mMediaBrowserCompatConnectionCallback, null
)
mMediaBrowserCompat!!.connect()
}
}
Cool Yuri, the below worked and I think is more efficient
fun playClicked() = GlobalScope.launch(Dispatchers.Main) {
mMediaBrowserCompat = MediaBrowserCompat(
applicationContext, ComponentName(applicationContext, MusicaWearService::class.java),
mMediaBrowserCompatConnectionCallback, null
)
mMediaBrowserCompat!!.connect()
}
Related
I have a Kotlin Backend/server API using Ktor, and inside a certain endpoint's service logic I need to concurrently get details for a list of ids and then return it all to the client with the 200 response.
The way I wanted to do it is by using async{} and awaitAll()
However, I can't understand whether I should use runBlocking or GlobalScope.
What is really the difference here?
fun getDetails(): List<Detail> {
val fetched: MutableList<Details> = mutableListOf()
GlobalScope.launch { --> Option 1
runBlocking { ---> Option 2
Dispatchers.IO --> Option 3 (or any other dispatcher ..)
myIds.map { id ->
async {
val providerDetails = getDetails(id)
fetched += providerDetails
}
}.awaitAll()
}
return fetched
}
launch starts a coroutine that runs in parallel with your current code, so fetched would still be empty by the time your getDetails() function returns. The coroutine will continue running and mutating the List that you have passed out of the function while the code that retrieved the list already has the reference back and will be using it, so there's a pretty good chance of triggering a ConcurrentModificationException. Basically, this is not a viable solution at all.
runBlocking runs a coroutine while blocking the thread that called it. The coroutine will be completely finished before the return fetched line, so this will work if you are OK with blocking the calling thread.
Specifying a Dispatcher isn't an alternative to launch or runBlocking. It is an argument that you can add to either to determine the thread pool used for the coroutine and its children. Since you are doing IO and parallel work, you should probably be using runBlocking(Dispatchers.IO).
Your code can be simplified to avoid the extra, unnecessary mutable list:
fun getDetails(): List<Detail> = runBlocking(Dispatchers.IO) {
myIds.map { id ->
async {
getDetails(id)
}
}.awaitAll()
}
Note that this function will rethrow any exceptions thrown by getDetails().
If your project uses coroutines more generally, you probably have higher level coroutines running, in which case this should probably be a suspend function (non-blocking) instead:
suspend fun getDetails(): List<Detail> = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
myIds.map { id ->
async {
getDetails(id)
}
}.awaitAll()
}
I'm new to Kotlin coroutines topic and there is one issue, which totally blocks me from using them. I have the following code to run with coroutines:
runBlocking {
for (i in 0 until args[1].toInt()) {
GlobalScope.launch {
OuterObject().run()
}
}
And my OuterObject class has the following code in run() method:
override fun run() {
...
logger.info(){ "Checkpoint 0" }
var innerObject: InnerObject = InnerObject(some_parameter = 1)
logger.info(){ "Checkpoint 1" }
...
}
All the coroutines got started from the loop but reach only "Checkpoint 0". There are no log messages or any other actions after innerObject creation attempt.
The first thing I tried is to create another object, but it seems like the issue is general and does not depend on object's class. I've tried with DateTime(), Gson() and some others - each time coroutines stop at this point. I've also tried to add exception handled to the coroutine but there is no exception catched - the coroutine just silently stops.
What is the reason behind this and how can I avoid it?
Version of kotlinx-coroutines-core: 1.2.2
UPDATE 1:
I've checked a primitive type assignment and it works. Both "Checkpoint 0" and "Checkpoint 1" appear in console logs. The issue is only with complex types.
override fun run() {
...
logger.info(){ "Checkpoint 0" }
var test = 1
logger.info(){ "Checkpoint 1" }
...
}
UPDATE 2:
#gladed and #Sam, you are right. The article of #roman-elizarov also helped me out: The reason to avoid GlobalScope. It was wrong to call "launch" from GlobalScope - it is not related to the runBlocking scope.
I've modified my code in the following way:
runBlocking {(0 until args[1].toInt()).forEach {
launch(Dispatchers.Default) {
OuterObject().run()
}
}
I got some further issues with running the code this way but they were due to not optimal concurrency.
launch() starts a new coroutine. But you're not waiting for it to complete. Instead, consider:
runBlocking {
(0 until args[1].toInt()).forEach {
launch {
OuterObject().run()
}
}
}
This way, runBlocking won't return until all the launched jobs are complete. (Credit to #Sam on removing GlobalScope.)
The main idea is to have non-suspend function runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread(callback: (SomeModel) -> Unit) which run some work asynchronously in background (another thread) and after work is done - run callback in the caller thread (thread that launched runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread).
Below I wrote an example code, but I'm not sure how correct it is and whether it is possible at all. With the println("1/2/3/...") I marked the desired call order.
getDispatcherFromCurrentThread - if is possible to implement this function, then solution can be used, but I don't know how to implement it and is it right to do it like that at all.
Therefore, please do not consider it as the only solution.
import kotlinx.coroutines.*
import kotlin.concurrent.thread
fun main() {
println("1")
runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread {
println("4")
println("Hello ${it.someField} from ${Thread.currentThread().name}") // should be "Hello TestField from main"
}
println("2")
thread(name = "Second thread") {
runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread {
println("5")
println("Hello ${it.someField} from ${Thread.currentThread().name}") // should be "Hello TestField from Second thread"
}
}
println("3")
Thread.sleep(3000)
println("6")
}
fun runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread(callback: (SomeModel) -> Unit) {
val dispatcherFromCallerThread: CoroutineDispatcher = getDispatcherFromCurrentThread()
CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO).launch {
val result: SomeModel = getModelResult()
launch(dispatcherFromCallerThread) { callback(result) }
}
}
data class SomeModel(val someField: String)
suspend fun getModelResult(): SomeModel {
delay(1000)
return SomeModel("TestField")
}
fun getDispatcherFromCurrentThread(): CoroutineDispatcher {
// TODO: Create dispatcher from current thread... How to do that?
}
Unless the thread is designed to work as a dispatcher there isn't a universal way to make it do so.
The only way which comes to mind is the fact that runBlocking is re-entrant and will create an event-loop in the existing thread, however it will block all non-coroutine code from executing on that thread until it completes.
This ends up looking like:
fun runInBackgroundAndUseInCallerThread(callback: (SomeModel) -> Unit) {
callback(runBlocking(Dispatchers.IO) {
getModelResult()
})
}
dispatcher really is a coroutineContext and it is meaningful when used inside a scope
thus if you want pass dispatcher of parent scope to child scope you can do it.
GlobalScope.launch {
val dispatcher = this.coroutineContext
CoroutineScope(dispatcher).launch {
}
}
therefor getDispatcherFromCurrentThread should be like this.
fun getDispatcherFromCurrentThread(scope: CoroutineScope): CoroutineContext {
return scope.coroutineContext
}
and
GlobalScope.launch {
val dispatcher = getDispatcherFromCurrentThread(this)
CoroutineScope(dispatcher).launch {
}
}
which run some work asynchronously in background (another thread) and after work is done - run callback in the caller thread
First try to answer this question: what is the calling thread supposed to do while the background work is in progress?
Clearly it can't go on to the next line of your code, which is supposed to run after finishing the background work.
You also don't want it to block and wait.
What code should it run, then?
And the only reasonable answer is as follows: the calling thread should, at its topmost level of execution (entry-point function), run an infinite event loop. The code in your question should be inside an event handler submitted to the event loop. At the point you want to wait for the background work, the handler must return so the thread can go on handling other events, and you must have another handler ready to submit when the background work is done. This second handler, corresponding to your callback, is called the continuation and Kotlin provides it automatically. You don't in fact need your own callback.
However, now the most sensitive issue arises: how will you submit the continuation to the event loop? This is not something you can abstract over, you must use some API specific to the event loop in question.
And this is why Kotlin has the notion of a Dispatcher. It captures the case-specific concern of dispatching continuations to the desired thread. You seem to want to solve it without the need to write a dispatcher dedicated to each specific event loop, and unfortunately this is impossible.
I'm working with livedata. I want to run some arbitrary code in IO and then once that has completed, run some arbitrary code in the Main thread.
In JavaScript, you can accomplish something like this by chaining promises together. I know Kotlin is different, but that's at least a framework I'm coming from that I understand.
I have a function that will sometimes be called from Main and sometimes from IO, but it requires no special IO features itself. From within class VM: ViewModel():
private val mState = MyState() // data class w/property `a`
val myLiveData<MyState> = MutableLiveData(mState)
fun setVal(a: MyVal) {
mState = mState.copy(a=a)
myLiveData.value = mState
}
fun buttonClickHandler(a: MyVal) {
setVal(a) // Can execute in Main
}
fun getValFromDb() {
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) {
val a: MyVal = fetchFromDb()
setVal(a) // Error! Cannot call setValue from background thread!
}
}
Seems to me the obvious way would be to execute val a = fetchFromDb() from IO and then pull setVal(a) out of that block and into Main.
Is there a way to accomplish this? I don't see a conceptual reason why this feature could not exist. Is there some idea like
doAsyncThatReturnsValue(Dispatchers.IO) { fetchFromDb()}
.then(previousBlockReturnVal, Dispatchers.Main) { doInMain() }
that could be run in a ViewModel?
Please substitute "coroutine" for "thread" wherever appropriate above. :)
Launch is fine. You just have to switch around the dispatchers and use withContext:
fun getValFromDb() {
// run this coroutine on main thread
viewModelScope.launch(Dispatchers.Main) {
// obtain result by running given block on IO thread
// suspends coroutine until it's ready (without blocking the main thread)
val a: MyVal = withContext(Dispatchers.IO){ fetchFromDb() }
// executed on main thread
setVal(a)
}
}
This is what I thought:
When using coroutines you go piling up async ops and once you are done with synchronous op..call them in FIFO order..but that's not always true
In this example you get what I expected:
fun main() = runBlocking {
launch {
println("1")
}
launch {
println("2")
}
println("0")
}
Also here(with nested launch):
fun main() = runBlocking {
launch {
println("1")
}
launch {
launch {
println("3")
}
println("2")
}
println("0")
}
Now in this example with a scope builder and creating another "pile"(not the real term) the order changes but still..you get as expected
fun main() = runBlocking {
launch {
println("2")
}
// replacing launch
coroutineScope {
println("0")
}
println("1")
}
Finally..the reason of this question..example 2 with scope builder:
fun main() = runBlocking {
launch {
println("3")
}
coroutineScope {
launch {
println("1")
}
println("0")
}
println("2")
}
I get this:
0
3
1
2
Why??
Was my assumption wrong and that's not how coroutines work
If so..then how should I determine the correct order when coding
edited: I've tried running the same code on different machines and different platforms but always got the same result..also tried more complicated nesting to prove non-variability of results
And digging the documentation found that coroutines are just code transformation(as I initially thought)
Remember that even if the like to call them 'light-weight' threads they run in a single 'real' thread(note: without newSingleThreadContext)
Thus I chose to believe execution order is pre-established at compile-time and not decided at runtime
After all..I still can't anticipate the order..and that's what I want
Don't assume coroutines will be run in a specific order, the runtime will decide what's best to run when and in what order. What you may be interested in that will help is the kotlinx.coroutines documentation. It does a great job of explaining how they work and also provides some handy abstractions to help managing coroutines make more sense. I personally recommend checking out channels, jobs, and Deferred (async/await).
For example, if I wanted things done in a certain order by number, I'd use channels to ensure things arrived in the order I wanted.
runBlocking {
val channel = Channel<Int>()
launch {
for (x in 0..5) channel.send(x * x)
channel.close()
}
for (msg in channel) {
// Pretend we're doing some work with channel results
println("Message: $msg")
}
}
Hopefully that can give you more context or what coroutines are and what they're good for.