I am trying to send multiple NSUrlConnection simultaneously using thread concept. Also i am trying to handle the connection delegates.
I tried sending repeated request but i dono how to handle the received data. Is there any documentation regarding this multiple NSURLConnection.
Use sendAsynchronousRequest:queue:completionHandler: to send a request in the background and use to completion handler to react on the completed handler. This will allow you to send as much requests as you want at the same time.
For a documentation about NSURLConnection have a look at the official Apple Class Reference and Samples.
I would also recommend you do have a look at ASIHTTPRequest or MKNetworkKit. Both are libraries supporting you to create HTTP requests, but with a lot of useful additions and a little bit easier to use.
Related
I have been looking into the Play Framework as a possible candidate for helping me to build a simple API. However, the Django Rest Framework (DRF) also seems to be a pretty strong contenter.
As far as I can tell, the DRF does not advertise itself to be an asynchronous (or non-blocking) framework like the Play Framework does, but I am interested in whether or not this even matters. The situation that I keep thinking of is sending an email to a user via Mandrill -- I do not want my API to get bogged-down waiting for the Mandrill API to tell it whether or not the email was sent.
Thus, I think the question can be summarized like this: is there a benefit from the client's perspective that will result from my building an API with an asynchronous/non-blocking framework like Play over the DRF, or am I missing the point?
I'm a Django REST framework contributor (and user), so my perspective is biased towards that.
Django REST framework is built on Django, which is a synchronous framework for web applications. If you're already using a synchronous framework like Django, having a synchronous API is less of an issue.
Now, just because it is synchronous, that doesn't mean that only a single request can ever be handled at a time. Most web servers that are handling Django applications can handle multiple requests, some of theme even do it somewhat asynchronously across multiple threads. Usually this isn't actually an issue, as your web server can typically handle many concurrent requests, even if some of them are blocking. And when you have long, blocking calls you usually don't want that done within the API - you should be delegating that to background workers like Celery or Resque.
This isn't just specific to Django, many of the same principles apply to other synchronous frameworks like Rails and ASP.NET MVC. If you have long-running requests, you generally should be delegating work to other processes instead of holding up the request. It's common to use the 202 response code for these cases.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that asynchronous frameworks are useless. In runtimes such as Node.js, most frameworks handle requests asynchronously. It doesn't make sense to use a synchronous framework in these languages, so most libraries are built to be asynchronous.
What you choose very much depends on the tools that you are already using.
Regarding the clients connecting to your app there should be no difference at all if your server uses asynchronous/non-blocking (ANB) technologies or not. But it may make a lot of difference in the number of requests your app can handle.
Suppose the following scenario: a request that checks if a FB/Google/etc access token is valid, and then uses it to get the social profile of your user and then returns something back.
If you are using a blocking http client in your server, during each of the 2 http requests the thread serving that request can be blocked a lot of time doing nothing.
If you are using a non-blocking http client (like the one Play brings) while the HTTP request is made and the response comes back the thread can be used to do something else (ex: process part of another request).
Note that to solve this "problem" you wouldn't need an ANB framework, just an ANB http client. So you should look more to the kind of operations you will have in your app and check how your chosen framework will deal with them. For example: if your app consists almost of DB CRUD operations and the DB driver is blocking (like JDBC in Java and probably the ones used by Django) it really does not matter much if the framework is asynchronous or not, you will be blocking most of the time on that specific component.
In your email example probably Django+Celery will do just as fine as Play/Akka.
Non async frameworks usually do long-running tasks passing them to some external process (e.g. Resque/DelayedJob/sidekiq for Rails development)
just wanted to add that Mandrill API supports async parameter for sending emails.
Here is what's their docs are saying:
enable a background sending mode that is optimized for bulk sending. In async mode, messages/send will immediately return a status of "queued" for every recipient. To handle rejections when sending in async mode, set up a webhook for the 'reject' event.
So in case using async set to true you'll get handle immediately after performing a call to the API without waiting for all emails to be sent.
https://mandrillapp.com/api/docs/messages.JSON.html#method-send
(I took JSON version of the API just as example)
The Django community is working on this thing for now if you want you can utilise the sync_to_async() adapter .
It comes with some limitations and performance penalties but the community is still working on the same .
The link below will help you to work with the sync_to_async() adapter
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.2/topics/async/
I am curious to know how multiple async NSURLConnection connections handles internally ? I know they use an internal background thread to run it but lets say if in code i am creating two async NSURLConnection concurrently , does that will create two thread internally to run them in parllel or second connection will wait for first to complete ? In brief please confrim how multiple async NSURLConnection achieve concurrency ?
I guess it will run in parallel. You can have a look on WWDC Session Video about network programming.
Apple engineer said handling url request one by one is expensive, running them in parallel is much more reasonable. The reason is, for processing a request, actually most of the time is spent on latency, not logic processing in devices and servers. So, handling requests parallel will efficiently reduce time waste for latency.
so I guess they wont do async NSURLConnection one by one because it's contradicting this basic theory.
Besides, I have tried to download images Async using NSURLConnection. I sent out a few request once. like
for ( i = 1 to 4) {
send request i
}
The response is also not in sequence.
Each async NSURLConnection runs on it's own thread after you start the connection (async NSURLConnection has to be created and started on main thread!) and their delegate and datadelegate methods called on main thread.
Other option that you can use it as using "NSOperationQueue" and execute request using NSOperations. Please refer http://www.icodeblog.com/2012/10/19/tutorial-asynchronous-http-client-using-nsoperationqueue/ for more detail.
Thanks,
Jim
I am building one application on Mac OS X (10.6). In this application, I have one screen where user will provide input and that will be saved as a plist in local folder. This plist file needs to be trasferred to server using HTTP POST service. There should be check for server connectivity and if connections fails the files will be saved in local folder. With certain time duration, again the server connection will be checked and if found, then send all the files store in local folder one by one.
Basically, The GUI application will run continously to get input from user and in another thread there should be check for server connectivity and sending the files.
So my question is what might be the good approach to solve the problem and if any one can send some sample code, it would be great to me.
Thanks,
Barun
There are several approaches to threading in Objective-C! The easiest strategy is NSOperationQueue. Override NSOperation to handle your HTTP request, optionally set a completion block if you need to be notified when it's done, add an instance of it to an NSOperationQueue object and you're good to go. Set up an NSTimer to reschedule the upload if it fails the first time. You can use NSURLConnection to handle the web stuff. Note that NSURLConnection can make connections asynchronously or blocking. Since your NSOperation subclass runs in a separate thread already, you probably want to use the blocking method (if you don't you have to create a concurrent NSOperation subclass, which is a lot more work).
You can also use Grand Central Dispatch's API, detach a new thread to methods you specify, or use plain old c (I wouldn't recommend the last two but it's good to mention them). As a bonus, NSOperationQueue and Grand Central Dispatch both know "what's right" when you have multiple operations running at once, and will scale the number of threads to fit the number of core's in the user's computer to obtain the best performance.
Check the docs for NSOperationQueue, NSOperation, and NSURLConnection. The guides and example projects will have all the source code you need to get you started in the right direction.
I'm writing an API which is used to receive some data from another application. Currently the function is designed to block until data is received. In my mind this limits developers using the API to use multithreading or some sort of multi-process design. So is it better for a function to block or to return a null and then sleep for a few milliseconds before trying again.
Note the other application may not have any data to send through the API for an unknown period of time.
The API is written in C++
Why not use a callback?
You could define the API to allow the user to pass an optional timeout value. If the timeout is not specified, then the API function waits indefinitely, much like how select() works.
Consider another option: use an async transaction -> issue a request & provide a callback address with ticket id. When the response is available, the service end-point callbacks your application with the ticket id and of your the result ;-)
You should avoid as must as possible blocking when you possibly can.
As you say:
Note the other application may not have any data to send through the API for an unknown period of time.
In this case, using a synchronous interface ties up resources unnecessarily.
You haven't said what language this is, but it sounds like your API is listening or checking for some event, and the users of the API are either blocking or polling your API to determine if the event happened?
Is it possible to use a callback? Users of the API would register for notifications of the event happening, and when your library detects the event it will use the callback to notify all listeners.
When your applications calls the O/S api function read(), do you expect it to block? Of course you do—at least by default. In some circumstances, ioctl's allow a programmer to change the behavior to be asynchronous, which is particularly common in network applications.
You've shed very little light on what your API is about, so consider:
Does it make sense that an API user would want to be blocked? That is, is there little to do until it returns.
If you were writing an application for the API, what would you expect it to do? You should definitely write a few sample applications for your own education, as well as to document the API.
Is there any reason why the API user would not multithread (or fork, etc.) requests to the API?
If you want a reusable solution you could apply the Asynchronous Design 'Pattern' which is common in .NET but can also be implemented in C++ as demonstrated in this CodeProject project.
There's nothing wrong with providing both synchronous and asynchronous calls to the same feature in the interface.
Personally I would only go these lengths if I need to service multiple requests (in which case you can queue 'BeginOperation' requests for example), or there are many potentially asynchronous operations in the interface (and I want a standardised, flexible pattern). If you can only handle one request at a time a time-out is usually sufficient.
I understand that it isn't possible/sensible to use threads in RubyCocoa. However it is possible to use asynchronous Cocoa methods to avoid blocking user interface events.
I've successfully used a method on NSURLConnection to send an HTTP request and receive the response without blocking the user interface. But I'm wondering what other asynchronous Cocoa methods like this are available?
Also is it possible/sensible within a RubyCocoa application to use Ruby to spawn separate processes (as opposed to threads)? I suppose one issue would be how to wait for the process to complete, but perhaps this could be done by polling via NSTimer events?
Check this client, it's written in ruby and works pretty well.
httpclient