So I have a class that has a lifecycle, containing a start() and an stop() function to start and stop the lifecycle. Now in that start() function I have to start a coroutine and in stop() I have to cancel it (The coroutine in start() runs infinitely until it is canceled, kinda like a socket listening for messages).
Because I would like a nice syntax to handle Coroutines I would like this class to implement CoroutineScope. The thing is that start() and stop() can be called multiple times.
My question is if this implementation is valid and does not contain any errors. The purpose is to make a reusable CoroutineScope.
class ReusableCoroutines() : CoroutineScope {
private var job = Job()
override val coroutineContext: CoroutineContext
get() = job
fun start() {
job = Job()
launch {
println("Started and running!")
while(true) {
}
}
}
fun stop() {
job.cancel()
println("Stoped")
}
}
Disclaimer: I wouldn't do this. You don't get much out of reusable objects unless you are creating them by the thousands every seconds. I'd just create throwaway classes that are initialized on creation (without a start function) and then cancelled when stop is called. That being said this might work:
class ReusableCoroutines(
private val scope: CoroutineScope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.Default)
) : CoroutineScope by scope {
private lateinit var job: Job
private var stopped: Boolean = false
private var started: Boolean = false
#Synchronized
fun start() {
require(stopped.not()) {
"Already stopped!"
}
require(started.not()) {
"Already started!"
}
job = launch {
println("Started and running!")
while (true) {
}
}
}
#Synchronized
fun stop() {
require(stopped.not()) {
"Already stopped!"
}
stopped = true
cancel()
println("Stopped")
}
}
So you need some synchronization #Synchronized to prevent start being called from multiple threads and ending up in an inconsistent state.
You also take the scope as a parameter so you can get Structured Concurrency with this. You can also add SupervisorJob to scope to prevent the parent from being canceled when you cancel this scope.
Related
I start to use Channel in kotlinx.coroutines.channels with android and I am puzzled about the lifetime of my coroutineScope when using channel.
val inputChannel = Channel<String>()
launch(Dispatchers.Default) {
// #1
println("start #1 coroutine")
val value = inputChannel.receive()
println(value)
}
launch(Dispatchers.Default) {
inputChannel.send("foo")
}
It seems that if there is no value sent from inputChannel, inputChannel.receive() will never return a value and println(value) will not run, only "start #1 coroutine" will be printed.
My question is what happened to my #1 coroutine when inputChannel receives nothing? Does it run into a while(true) loop and keep waiting? If it does, will it run forever?
No, it will not run in "while(true)" loop.
Rather Coroutine#1 will get suspended at the line "inputChannel.receive()"
More details at
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/coroutines/channels.html#buffered-channels
Regarding the "Lifetime" of CoroutineScope, it should be managed explicitly based on the Scenario.
For eg, in below "MyNotificationListener Service", the CoroutineScope is tied to the LIFECYCLE of the SERVICE i.e. the Coroutines are launched in "onCreate()" and cancelled in "onDestroy()"
class MyNotificationListener : NotificationListenerService() {
private val listenerJob = SupervisorJob()
private val listenerScope = CoroutineScope(listenerJob + Dispatchers.Default)
override fun onCreate() {
// Launch Coroutines
listenerScope.launch {
}
}
override fun onDestroy() {
// Cancel the Coroutines
listenerJob.cancel()
}
}
I have the following class:
class SdkWrapper(private val sdk: Sdk) {
private var inited = false
suspend fun doSomething() = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
if (inited.not()) init()
useSdk()
}
private fun init() {
// takes a long time
sdk.init()
inited = true
}
// has to be done asynchronously
// sdk.init() has to have been called before using this
private fun useSdk() {
}
}
class Sdk {
// must only be done once
fun init() {}
}
Before I can do useSdk(), I must call sdk.init(), but sdk.init() must only be called once, not more.
With my current solution, if doSomething is called twice quickly (the second time happening while sdk.init() still running), I would call sdk.init() twice, because inited: Boolean is still false.
If I move the assignment of inited up like:
private fun init() {
inited = true
sdk.init()
}
and doSomething() is called twice rapidly, the second call would use the sdk before its' init() has been done.
I tried to solve this with:
suspend fun doSomething() = synchronized(this){
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
if (inited.not()) init()
useSdk()
}
}
but receive an error in IntelliJ:
the withContext suspension point is inside a critical section
I assume that synchronized wouldn't work here anyway, because we move off the main thread and doSomething() is completed while the withContext block is still running?
How can I solve the problem at hand which basically is: doSomething() should only run once at a time?
Instead of synchronized {...} you can use a Mutex:
class SdkWrapper(private val sdk: Sdk) {
...
private val mutex = Mutex()
suspend fun doSomething() = mutex.withLock {
withContext(Dispatchers.IO) {
if (inited.not()) init()
useSdk()
}
}
...
}
You can take a look at the official documentation about Coroutines and mutual exclusion here.
How to provide scope or how to call suspend function from Service Android?
Usually, activity or viewmodel provides us the scope, from where we can launch suspend but there is no similar thing in Service
You can create your own CoroutineScope with a SupervisorJob that you can cancel in the onDestroy() method. The coroutines created with this scope will live as long as your Service is being used. Once onDestroy() of your service is called, all coroutines started with this scope will be cancelled.
class YourService : Service() {
private val job = SupervisorJob()
private val scope = CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.IO + job)
...
fun foo() {
scope.launch {
// Call your suspend function
}
}
override fun onDestroy() {
super.onDestroy()
job.cancel()
}
}
Edit: Changed Dispatchers.Main to Dispatchers.IO
SupervisorJob() (Kotlin GitHub) is a job that provides uniderectional cancellation; it allows for cancellations to propogate downwards only.
The SupervisorJob ... is similar to a regular Job with the only exception that cancellation is propagated only downwards. [KotlinLang.org]
Use case: You have a service that makes a log entry, checks settings, and depending on those settings goes ahead and performs some actions. Do you want all children jobs of the parent job (scope) to cancel if, for instance, a job run based on settings' values throws an exception? If not (i.e. you still want your logging and check for settings jobs to complete at the least) then you want to use the SupervisorJob(), or even supervisorScope (Kotlin GitHub) for 'scoped concurrency' [KotlinLang.org], as both provide unidirectional job cancellation - and in that case the provided answer works.
Coroutine Exception Handling - Supervision (KotlinLang.org)
However, there is a more direct solution that answers the question.
To provide to your service a scope with which to run coroutines (or suspending functions) that execute blocking code, you can simply create a new CoroutineScope() with an EmptyCoroutineContext:
(Snippet from CoroutineScope Documentation)
If the given context does not contain a Job element, then a default Job() is created. This way, cancellation or failure of any child coroutine in this scope cancels all the other children, just like inside coroutineScope block [Kotlin GitHub]
class YourClass : Extended() {
...
private val serviceScope: CoroutineScope( EmptyCoroutineContext )
...
private inner class ServiceHandler( looper: Looper ): Handler( looper ) {
override fun handleMessage( msg: Message ) {
super.handleMessage( msg )
serviceScope.launch {
try{
+ ...
} catch( e: Exception ) {
+ ...
} finally {
stopSelf( msg.arg1 )
}
}
}
}
override fun onCreate(){
+ ...
}
override fun onDestroy(){
/* In a service, unlike in an activity, we do not
need to make a call to the super implementation */
//super.onDestory()
serviceScope.cancel()
}
}
for me worked like that
import androidx.lifecycle.lifecycleScope
class ServiceLife : LifecycleService() {
private var supervisorJob = SupervisorJob(parent = null)
override fun onCreate() {
super.onCreate()
val serviceJob = lifecycleScope.launch {
//some suspend fun
}
supervisorJob[serviceJob.key]
supervisorJob.cancel()
}
}
The Code A is from the project architecture-samples, you can see it here.
The updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is suspend function, so it maybe run asynchronously.
When I call the function getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean) with the paramter True, I'm afraid that return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource().
I don't know if the Code B can guarantee return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired after updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource().
Code A
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
...
}
Code B
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
coroutineScope {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
...
}
Added Content
To Tenfour04: Thanks!
If somebody implement updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() with lauch just like Code C, are you sure the Code C is return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will be fired after updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() when I call the function getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean) with the paramter True?
Code C
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource()
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
launch { //I suppose that launch can be fired
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
}
New Added Content
To Joffrey: Thanks!
I think that the Code D can be compiled.
In this case, when forceUpdate is true, tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() maybe be run before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is done.
Code D
class DefaultTasksRepository(
private val tasksRemoteDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val tasksLocalDataSource: TasksDataSource,
private val ioDispatcher: CoroutineDispatcher = Dispatchers.IO,
private val myCoroutineScope: CoroutineScope
) : TasksRepository {
override suspend fun getTasks(forceUpdate: Boolean): Result<List<Task>> {
// Set app as busy while this function executes.
wrapEspressoIdlingResource {
if (forceUpdate) {
try {
updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource(myCoroutineScope)
} catch (ex: Exception) {
return Result.Error(ex)
}
}
return tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks()
}
}
private suspend fun updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource(myCoroutineScope: CoroutineScope) {
val remoteTasks = tasksRemoteDataSource.getTasks()
if (remoteTasks is Success) {
// Real apps might want to do a proper sync, deleting, modifying or adding each task.
tasksLocalDataSource.deleteAllTasks()
myCoroutineScope.launch {
remoteTasks.data.forEach { task ->
tasksLocalDataSource.saveTask(task)
}
}
} else if (remoteTasks is Result.Error) {
throw remoteTasks.exception
}
}
...
}
suspend functions look like regular functions from the call site's point of view because they execute sequentially just like regular synchronous functions.
What I mean by this is that the instructions following a plain call to a suspend function do not execute until the called function completes its execution.
This means that code A is fine (when forceUpdate is true, tasksLocalDataSource.getTasks() will never run before updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource() is done), and the coroutineScope in code B is unnecessary.
Now regarding code C, structured concurrency is here to save you.
People simply cannot call launch without a CoroutineScope receiver.
Since TaskRepository doesn't extend CoroutineScope, the code C as-is will not compile.
There are 2 ways to make this compile though:
Using GlobalScope.launch {}: this will cause the problem you expect, indeed. The body of such a launch will be run asynchronously and independently of the caller. updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource can in this case return before the launch's body is done. The only way to control this is to use .join() on the Job returned by the call to launch (which waits until it's done). This is why it is usually not recommended to use the GlobalScope, because it can "leak" coroutines.
wrapping calls to launch in a coroutineScope {...} inside updateTasksFromRemoteDataSource. This will ensure that all coroutines launched within the coroutineScope block are actually finished before the coroutineScope call completes. Note that everything that's inside the coroutineScope block may very well run concurrently, though, depending on how launch/async are used, but this is the whole point of using launch in the first place, isn't it?
Now with Code D, my answer for code C sort of still holds. Whether you pass a scope or use the GlobalScope, you're effectively creating coroutines with a bigger lifecycle than the suspending function that starts them.
Therefore, it does create the problem you fear.
But why would you pass a CoroutineScope if you don't want implementers to launch long lived coroutines in the provided scope?
Assuming you don't do that, it's unlikely that a developer would use the GlobalScope (or any scope) to do this. It's generally bad style to create long-lived coroutines from a suspending function. If your function is suspending, callers usually expect that when it completes, it has actually done its work.
I would like to suspend a kotlin coroutine until a method is called from outside, just like the old Java object.wait() and object.notify() methods. How do I do that?
Here: Correctly implementing wait and notify in Kotlin is an answer how to implement this with Kotlin threads (blocking). And here: Suspend coroutine until condition is true is an answer how to do this with CompleteableDeferreds but I do not want to have to create a new instance of CompleteableDeferred every time.
I am doing this currently:
var nextIndex = 0
fun handleNext(): Boolean {
if (nextIndex < apps.size) {
//Do the actual work on apps[nextIndex]
nextIndex++
}
//only execute again if nextIndex is a valid index
return nextIndex < apps.size
}
handleNext()
// The returned function will be called multiple times, which I would like to replace with something like notify()
return ::handleNext
From: https://gitlab.com/SuperFreezZ/SuperFreezZ/blob/master/src/superfreeze/tool/android/backend/Freezer.kt#L69
Channels can be used for this (though they are more general):
When capacity is 0 – it creates RendezvousChannel. This channel does not have any buffer at all. An element is transferred from sender to receiver only when send and receive invocations meet in time (rendezvous), so send suspends until another coroutine invokes receive and receive suspends until another coroutine invokes send.
So create
val channel = Channel<Unit>(0)
And use channel.receive() for object.wait(), and channel.offer(Unit) for object.notify() (or send if you want to wait until the other coroutine receives).
For notifyAll, you can use BroadcastChannel instead.
You can of course easily encapsulate it:
inline class Waiter(private val channel: Channel<Unit> = Channel<Unit>(0)) {
suspend fun doWait() { channel.receive() }
fun doNotify() { channel.offer(Unit) }
}
It is possible to use the basic suspendCoroutine{..} function for that, e.g.
class SuspendWait() {
private lateinit var myCont: Continuation<Unit>
suspend fun sleepAndWait() = suspendCoroutine<Unit>{ cont ->
myCont = cont
}
fun resume() {
val cont = myCont
myCont = null
cont.resume(Unit)
}
}
It is clear, the code have issues, e.g. myCont field is not synchonized, it is expected that sleepAndWait is called before the resume and so on, hope the idea is clear now.
There is another solution with the Mutex class from the kotlinx.coroutines library.
class SuspendWait2 {
private val mutex = Mutex(locaked = true)
suspend fun sleepAndWait() = mutex.withLock{}
fun resume() {
mutex.unlock()
}
}
I suggest using a CompletableJob for that.
My use case:
suspend fun onLoad() {
var job1: CompletableJob? = Job()
var job2: CompletableJob? = Job()
lifecycleScope.launch {
someList.collect {
doSomething(it)
job1?.complete()
}
}
lifecycleScope.launch {
otherList.collect {
doSomethingElse(it)
job2?.complete()
}
}
joinAll(job1!!, job2!!) // suspends until both jobs are done
job1 = null
job2 = null
// Do something one time
}