Lets say I have these Kotlin suspend functions doing various operations:
suspend fun operation1(){ //some code }
suspend fun operation2(){ //some code }
suspend fun operation3(){ //some code }
suspend fun operation4(){ //some code }
suspend fun operation5(){ //some code }
I have a function which gets called by an external library (which we can't modify), where I make calls to these functions (of course its logic is more complex in practice). Let's assume the library can make any number of calls in a short time.
fun calledByLibrary(someParam: String){
GlobalScope.launch{
when(someParam){
"someValue1" -> operation1()
"someValue2" -> operation2()
"someValue3" -> operation3()
"someValue4" -> operation4()
"someValue5" -> operation5()
}
}
}
Now, we had a bug, and figured that operation3 and operation4 can not be suspended to run in 'parallel'. They even need to be executed in the same order as called by the external library. For all the other combinations it's ok to do that, so we would like to keep them as suspend to support this.
What's the best way to solve this?
One simple, and easy way would be to use a Mutex in operation3 and operation4 to ensure they don't run in the same time, like this:
val mutex = Mutex()
suspend fun operation3(){ mutex.withLock(){/*some code*/} }
suspend fun operation4(){ mutex.withLock(){/*some code*/} }
But this does not guarantee that they will be executed in the order they have been requested by the library.
Also tried searching for running coroutines in a queue, but surprisingly did not find anything trivial. (Current solution is using a single threaded dispatcher and runBlocking, which is far from ideal)
After tying a lot of things, seems like an actor can be a solution, as a lot of people mentioned using channels, which is a part of the actors. But implementing an actor seemed a complex solution, for such a simple issue, so I tried to avoid it and find a more simple one.
Turned out that the idea with the mutex can be easily fixed to also ensure the order of execution, by using the same thread in the coroutine.
The operation functions already had the logic to use the proper thread when needed (if they did not it would be a trivial thing to add). So the only change needed is to launch the coroutine in the callback on the same thread always. This can be done easily by using Dispachers.Unconfined, or if you want to avoid that, you can create your own single threaded dispacher too.
So, the of course highly simplified solution, would look like this:
fun calledByLibrary(someParam: String){
//You can use any single threaded dispatcher here
//if you want to avoid the unconfined
GlobalScope.launch(Dispachers.Unconfined){
when(someParam){
"someValue1" -> operation1()
"someValue2" -> operation2()
"someValue3" -> operation3()
"someValue4" -> operation4()
"someValue5" -> operation5()
}
}
}
val mutex = Mutex()
suspend fun operation1(){ launch{/*some code*/} }
suspend fun operation2(){ launch{/*some code*/} }
suspend fun operation3(){ mutex.withLock(){launch{/*some code*/}} }
suspend fun operation4(){ mutex.withLock(){launch{/*some code*/}} }
suspend fun operation5(){ launch{/*some code*/} }
You can also do something like this from within a coroutine scope. The await() makes sure to wait for the results before continueing.
val resultOne = async { repository.getSomethingFromApi() }
val resultTwo = async { repository.getSomethingElseFromApi() }
val resultOneFromApi = resultOne.await()
val resultTwoFromApi = resultTwo.await()
Related
I want to use Kotlin coroutines in my reactive sql client transactions.
For simplicity, I was going to use the provided helper function io.vertx.mutiny.sqlclient.Pool#withTransaction mentioned in the docs here. Since the passed function is not a coroutine suspend function, I'm getting an error like Suspension functions can be called only within coroutine body when Im trying to compile a code like the following
val client : PgPool
...
suspend fun someServiceFunction () {
client.withTransaction { connection ->
repository.save(connection, entity).awaitSuspending() //This is not working
...
}
}
The function header for the withTransaction looks like this
#CheckReturnValue
public <T> Uni<T> withTransaction(Function<SqlConnection, Uni<T>> function)
I'm asking myself if there is still a way to use this with kotlin coroutines, since I'm pretty new to them.
Thank you for any help !
I'm not familiar with Mutiny nor Quarkus, but it seems there is a way to convert from Deferred<T> to Uni<T> in mutiny-kotlin, which you seem to be using.
You could therefore create your own suspending version of withTransaction like this:
import io.vertx.mutiny.sqlclient.SqlConnection
import io.vertx.mutiny.sqlclient.Pool
#OptIn(ExperimentalCoroutinesApi::class)
suspend fun <T> Pool.withTransaction(block: suspend (SqlConnection) -> T): T = coroutineScope {
client.withTransaction { connection ->
async { block(connection) }.asUni()
}.awaitSuspending()
}
And then use it:
suspend fun someServiceFunction() {
client.withTransaction { connection ->
repository.save(connection, entity).awaitSuspending()
// potentially other suspending stuff here, without the need to combine()
}
}
But that begs the question, why use the Mutiny variant of Vertx things, if in the end you want to use Kotlin coroutines? I think by default Vertx works with Java futures which are also integrated with coroutines.
I use kotlin multiplatform which prohibits using runBlocking in common code since it is not supported by JS implementation.
My goal is to be able to call suspend functions from my non-suspend function like in the example below. Also I do not care about JS because I will use only JVM, Android, iOS targets
fun main() {
runBlocking {
doSomething()
}
}
suspend fun doSomething() {
}
One solution I can think about is to create expected and actual classes and make runBlocking call separately on each platform actual class, but I want to avoid this as it will cause some code duplication.
runBlocking {
doSomething()
}
Are there any better solution how to bridge blocking and non-blocking code together in common module?
In the common code you can use:
CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.Default).launch {
}
or
MainScope().launch {
}
Depending on the scope you need.
And don't forget to use -native-mt version of coroutines if you're targeting iOS, more info here
This won't block you current thread, as runBlocking does, so if you really need this functionality, you indeed had to implement it with expect/actual, but I have not faced a similar need.
Suppose I have a blocking function because of some third party library. Something along these lines:
fun useTheLibrary(arg: String): String {
val result = BlockingLibrary.doSomething(arg)
return result
}
Invocations to BlockingLibrary.doSomething should run on a separate ThreadPoolExecutor.
What's the proper way (assuming there is a way) of achieving this with kotlin?
Note: I've read this thread but seems pretty outdated
If the blocking code is blocking because of CPU use, you should use Dispatchers.Default. If it is network- or disk-bound, use Dispatchers.IO. You can make this into a suspending function and wrap the blocking call in withContext to allow this function to properly suspend when called from a coroutine:
suspend fun useTheLibrary(arg: String): String = withContext(Dispatchers.Default) {
BlockingLibrary.doSomething(arg)
}
If you need to use a specific ThreadPoolExecutor because of API requirements, you can use asCoroutineDispatcher().
val myDispatcher = myExecutor.asCoroutineDispatcher()
//...
suspend fun useTheLibrary(arg: String): String = withContext(myDispatcher) {
BlockingLibrary.doSomething(arg)
}
If your library contains a callback-based way to run the blocking code, you can convert it into a suspend function using suspendCoroutine() or suspendCancellableCoroutine(). In this case, you don't need to worry about executors or dispatchers, because it's handled by the library's own thread pool. Here's an example in the Retrofit library, where they convert their own callback-based API into a suspend function.
Inside a coroutine I am doing a http-request with OkHttpClient. The request is done from a function that has the suspend keyword:
suspend fun doSomethingFromHttp(someParam:String): Something {
...
val response = HttpReader.get(url)
return unmarshalSomething(response)!!
}
I assume that the function can be suspended on entry since it has the suspend keyword, but will the coroutine also be suspended when doing the http-request? What about other kinds of blocking IO?
There's no automagic going on with Kotlin coroutines. If you call a blocking function like HttpReader.get(), the coroutine won't be suspended and instead the call will block. You can easily assure yourself that a given function won't cause the coroutine to suspend: if it's not a suspend function, it cannot possibly do it, whether or not it's called from a suspend function.
If you want to turn an existing blocking API into non-blocking, suspendable calls, you must submit the blocking calls to a threadpool. The easiest way to achieve it is as follows:
val response = withContext(Dispatchers.IO) { HttpReader.get(url) }
withContext is a suspend fun that will suspend the coroutine, submit the provided block to another coroutine dispatcher (here IO) and resume when that block is done and has come up with its result.
You can also easily instantiate your own ExecutorService and use it as a coroutine dispatcher:
val myPool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool().asCoroutineDispatcher()
Now you can write
val response = withContext(myPool) { HttpReader.get(url) }
This PR has example code for proper OkHttp coroutines support
https://github.com/square/okhttp/pull/4129/files
It uses the thread pools of OkHttp to do the work. The key bit of code is this generic library code.
suspend fun OkHttpClient.execute(request: Request): Response {
val call = this.newCall(request)
return call.await()
}
suspend fun Call.await(): Response {
return suspendCancellableCoroutine { cont ->
cont.invokeOnCancellation {
cancel()
}
enqueue(object : Callback {
override fun onFailure(call: Call, e: IOException) {
if (!cont.isCancelled) {
cont.resumeWithException(e)
}
}
override fun onResponse(call: Call, response: Response) {
if (!cont.isCancelled) {
cont.resume(response)
}
}
})
}
}
There are two types of IO libraries in JAVA world, using IO or NIO.
You can find more documentation at https://dzone.com/articles/high-concurrency-http-clients-on-the-jvm
The ones using NIO, can theoretically provide true nonblocking suspension unlike IO ones which only offload the task to a separate thread.
NIO uses some dispatcher threads in the JVM to handle the input output sockets using multiplexing (Reactor design pattern). The way it works is, we request the NIO/dispatchers to load/unload something and they return us some future reference. This code can be turned into coroutines easily.
For IO based libraries, coroutine implementation is not true non blocking. It actually blocks one of the threads just like in Java, however the general usage pattern is, to use Dispatcher.IO which is a threadpool for such blocking IO tasks.
Instead of using OkHttpClient, I would recommend using https://ktor.io/docs/client.html
I'm trying to poll a paginated API and provide new items to the user as they appear.
fun connect(): Sequence<T> = buildSequence {
while (true) {
// result is a List<T>
val result = dataSource.getFirstPage()
yieldAll(/* the new data in `result` */)
// Block the thread for a little bit
}
}
Here's the sample usage:
for (item in connect()) {
// do something as each item is made available
}
My first thought was to use the delay function, but I get this message:
Restricted suspended functions can only invoke member or extension suspending functions on their restricted coroutine scope
This is the signature for buildSequence:
public fun <T> buildSequence(builderAction: suspend SequenceBuilder<T>.() -> Unit): Sequence<T>
I think this message means that I can only use the suspend functions in SequenceBuilder: yield and yieldAll and that using arbitrary suspend function calls aren't allowed.
Right now I'm using this to block the sequence building by one second after every time the API is polled:
val resumeTime = System.nanoTime() + TimeUnit.SECONDS.toNanos(1)
while (resumeTime > System.nanoTime()) {
// do nothing
}
This works, but it really doesn't seem like a good solution. Has anybody encountered this issue before?
Why does it not work? Some research
When we look at buildSequence, we can see that it takes an builderAction: suspend SequenceBuilder<T>.() -> Unit as its argument. As a client of that method, you'll be able to hand on a suspend lambda that has SequenceBuilder as its receiver (read about lambda with receiver here).
The SequenceBuilder itself is annotated with RestrictSuspension:
#RestrictsSuspension
#SinceKotlin("1.1")
public abstract class SequenceBuilder<in T> ...
The annotation is defined and commented like this:
/**
* Classes and interfaces marked with this annotation are restricted
* when used as receivers for extension `suspend` functions.
* These `suspend` extensions can only invoke other member or extension
* `suspend` functions on this particular receiver only
* and are restricted from calling arbitrary suspension functions.
*/
#SinceKotlin("1.1") #Target(AnnotationTarget.CLASS) #Retention(AnnotationRetention.BINARY)
public annotation class RestrictsSuspension
As the RestrictSuspension documentation tells, in the case of buildSequence, you can pass a lambda with SequenceBuilder as its receiver but with restricted possibilities since you'll only be able to call "other member or extension suspend functions on this particular receiver". That means, the block passed to buildSequence may call any method defined on SequenceBuilder (like yield, yieldAll). Since, on the other hand, the block is "restricted from calling arbitrary suspension functions", using delay does not work. The resulting compiler error verifies it:
Restricted suspended functions can only invoke member or extension suspending functions on their restricted coroutine scope.
Ultimately, you need to be aware that the buildSequence creates a coroutine that is an example of a synchronous coroutine. In your example, the sequence code will be executed in the same thread that consumes the sequence by calling connect().
How to delay the sequence?
As we learned, The buildSequence creates a synchronous sequence. It's fine to use regular Thread blocking here:
fun connect(): Sequence<T> = buildSequence {
while (true) {
val result = dataSource.getFirstPage()
yieldAll(result)
Thread.sleep(1000)
}
}
But, do you really want an entire thread to be blocked? Alternatively, you can implement asynchronous sequences as described here. As a result, using delay and other suspending functions will be valid.
Just for an alternate solution...
If what you're really trying to do is asynchronously produce elements, you can use Flows which are basically asynchronous sequences.
Here is a quick table:
Sync
Async
Single
Normal valuefun example(): String
suspendingsuspend fun example(): Stringorfun example(): Deferred<String>
Many
Sequencefun example(): Sequence<String>
Flowfun example(): Flow<String>
You can convert your Sequence<T> to a Flow<T> by replacing the sequence { ... } builder with the flow { ... } builder and then replace yield/yieldAll with emit/emitAll:
fun example(): Flow<String> = flow {
(1..5).forEach { getString().let { emit(it) } }
}
suspend fun getString(): String = { ... }
So, for your example:
fun connect(): Flow<T> = flow {
while (true) {
// Call suspend function to get data from dataSource
val result: List<T> = dataSource.getFirstPage()
emitAll(result)
// _Suspend_ for a little bit
delay(1000)
}
}