I'm using an API that has a 'bind' function that I call at the start of my program, but to be a good API user, I need to call the 'unbind' function when my program quits for any reason. Is there a way to do that? I can't find anything on Google, and defer api.Unbind() doesn't seem to get called. Thx.
There is no single way to get a 100% guarantee that some code is called before abnormal program termination. The closest you can get is to react to os.Interrupt (and also syscall.SIGTERM on Unix systems) and make sure your cleanup is done thereafter. A good way to achieve this is to use NotifyContext because it ties in nicely with the context package the main use of which is to allow for implementing cancellation of (potentially) long-running code.
Related
I know you can define functions called init in any package, and these function will be executed before main. I use this to open my log file and my DB connection.
Is there a way to define code that will be executed when the program ends, either because it reaches the end of the main function or because it was interrupted ? The only way I can think of is by manually calling a deffered terminate function on each package used by main, but that's quite verbose and error prone.
The C atexit functionality was considered by the Go developers and the idea of adopting it was rejected.
From one of the related thread at golang-nuts:
Russ Cox:
Atexit may make sense in single-threaded, short-lived
programs, but I am skeptical that it has a place in a
long-running multi-threaded server.
I've seen many C++ programs that hang on exit because
they're running global destructors that don't really need to
run, and those destructors are cleaning up and freeing
memory that would be reclaimed by the operating system
anyway, if only the program could get to the exit system call.
Compared to all that pain, needing to call Flush when you're
one with a buffer seems entirely reasonable and is
necessary anyway for correct execution of long-running
programs.
Even ignoring that problem, atexit introduces even more
threads of control, and you have to answer questions like
do all the other goroutines stop before the atexit handlers
run? If not, how do they avoid interfering? If so, what if
one holds a lock that the handler needs? And on and on.
I'm not at all inclined to add Atexit.
Ian Lance Taylor:
The only fully reliable mechanism is a wrapper program that invokes the
real program and does the cleanup when the real program completes. That
is true in any language, not just Go.
In my somewhat unformed opinion, os.AtExit is not a great idea. It is
an unstructured facility that causes stuff to happen at program exit
time in an unpredictable order. It leads to weird scenarios like
programs that take a long time just to exit, an operation that should be
very fast. It also leads to weird functions like the C function _exit,
which more or less means exit-but-don't-run-atexit-functions.
That said, I think a special exit function corresponding to the init
function is an interesting idea. It would have the structure that
os.AtExit lacks (namely, exit functions are run in reverse order of when
init functions are run).
But exit functions won't help you if your program gets killed by the
kernel, or crashes because you call some C code that gets a segmentation
violation.
In general, I agree with jnml's answer. Should you however still want to do it, you could use defer in the main() function, like this: http://play.golang.org/p/aUdFXHtFOM.
I'm trying to use a coroutine function outside of the event loop. (In this case, I want to call a function in Django that could also be used inside the event loop too)
There doesn't seem to be a way to do this without making the calling function a coroutine.
I realize that Django is built to be blocking and a therefore incompatible with asyncio. Though I think that this question might help people who are making the transition or using legacy code.
For that matter, it might help to understand async programming and why it doesn't work with blocking code.
After a lot of research I think these solutions could be helpful:
Update your legacy code to use asyncio:
Yes i know that it can be hard and painful, but it might be the sanest choice. If you are wanting to use Django like I was... Well, you've got a lot of work to do to make Django async'd. I'm not sure it is possible, but I found at least one attempt: https://github.com/aaugustin/django-c10k-demo (Though, in a youtube video the author explained all the shortcomings of this).
use asyncio.async or asyncio.Task:
These items will enable you to run something async inside of blocking code, but the downfall here is that you will not be able to wait for them to finish without doing something ugly like a while loop that checks if the future has completed... ugh, but if you don't need the result, that might work for you.
About case #2: Blocking code should be at least wrapped with .run_in_executor.
Hi Golang programmers,
First of all I apologize if my question is not very clear initially but I'm trying to understand the proper usage pattern when writing Golang code that uses Goroutines when using the standard lib or other libraries.
Let me elaborate: Suppose I import some package that I didn't have a hand in writing that I want to utilize. Let's say this package does a simple http get request somehow to a website such as Flickr for example. If I want a concurrent request, I can just prefix the function call with the go keyword. But how do I know, that this package when doing the request doesn't already do some internal go calls itself therefore making my go calls redundant?
Do Golang packages typically say in the documentation that their method is "greened"? Or perhaps they provide two versions of a method, one that is green and one that is straight synchronous?
In my quest to understand Go idioms and usage patterns I feel like when using even packages in the standard lib that I can't be sure if my go commands are necessary. I suppose I can profile the calls, or write test code but that feels odd to have to figure out if a func is already "green".
I suppose another possibility is that it's up to me to study the source code of whatever I'm using and understand how it should be used and if the go keyword is necessary.
If anybody can shed some light on this or point me to the right documentation or even a Golang screen-cast I'd much appreciate it. I think Rob Pike briefly mentions in one talk that a good client api written go is just written in a typical synchronous manner and it's up to the caller of that api to have the choice of making it green or not.
Thanks for your time,
-Ralph
If a function / method returns some value(s), or have a side effect like that (io.Reader.Read) - then it's necessarily a synchronous thing. Unless documented otherwise, no safety for concurrent use by multiple goroutines should be assumed.
If it accepts a closure (callback) or a channel or if it returns a channel - then it is often an asynchronous thing. If that's the case, it's normally either obvious or explicitly documented. Asynchronous stuff like this is usually safe for concurrent use by multiple goroutines.
I know you can define functions called init in any package, and these function will be executed before main. I use this to open my log file and my DB connection.
Is there a way to define code that will be executed when the program ends, either because it reaches the end of the main function or because it was interrupted ? The only way I can think of is by manually calling a deffered terminate function on each package used by main, but that's quite verbose and error prone.
The C atexit functionality was considered by the Go developers and the idea of adopting it was rejected.
From one of the related thread at golang-nuts:
Russ Cox:
Atexit may make sense in single-threaded, short-lived
programs, but I am skeptical that it has a place in a
long-running multi-threaded server.
I've seen many C++ programs that hang on exit because
they're running global destructors that don't really need to
run, and those destructors are cleaning up and freeing
memory that would be reclaimed by the operating system
anyway, if only the program could get to the exit system call.
Compared to all that pain, needing to call Flush when you're
one with a buffer seems entirely reasonable and is
necessary anyway for correct execution of long-running
programs.
Even ignoring that problem, atexit introduces even more
threads of control, and you have to answer questions like
do all the other goroutines stop before the atexit handlers
run? If not, how do they avoid interfering? If so, what if
one holds a lock that the handler needs? And on and on.
I'm not at all inclined to add Atexit.
Ian Lance Taylor:
The only fully reliable mechanism is a wrapper program that invokes the
real program and does the cleanup when the real program completes. That
is true in any language, not just Go.
In my somewhat unformed opinion, os.AtExit is not a great idea. It is
an unstructured facility that causes stuff to happen at program exit
time in an unpredictable order. It leads to weird scenarios like
programs that take a long time just to exit, an operation that should be
very fast. It also leads to weird functions like the C function _exit,
which more or less means exit-but-don't-run-atexit-functions.
That said, I think a special exit function corresponding to the init
function is an interesting idea. It would have the structure that
os.AtExit lacks (namely, exit functions are run in reverse order of when
init functions are run).
But exit functions won't help you if your program gets killed by the
kernel, or crashes because you call some C code that gets a segmentation
violation.
In general, I agree with jnml's answer. Should you however still want to do it, you could use defer in the main() function, like this: http://play.golang.org/p/aUdFXHtFOM.
Let's say I have an event and the corresponding function is called. This function interacts with the outside world and so can sometimes have long delays. If the function waits or hangs then my UI will freeze and this is not desirable. On the other hand, having to break up my function into many parts and re-emitting signals is long and can break up the code alot which would make hard to debug and less readable and slows down the development process. Is there a special feature in event driven programming which would enable me to just write the process in one function call and be able to let the mainThread do its job when its waiting? For example, the compiler could reckognize a keyword then implement a return then re-emit signals connected to new slots automatically? Why do I think this would be a great idea ;) Im working with Qt
Your two options are threading, or breaking your function up somehow.
With threading, it sounds like your ideal solution would be Qt::Concurrent. If all of your processing is already in one function, and the function is pretty self-contained (doesn't reference member variables of the class), this would be easy to do. If not, things might get a little more complicated.
For breaking your function up, you can either do it as you suggested and break it into different functions, with the different parts being called one after another, or you can do it in a more figurative way, but scattering calls to allow other processing inside your function. I believe calling processEvents() would do what you want, but I haven't come across its use in a long time. Of course, you can run into other problems with that unless you understand that it might cause other parts of your class to run once more (in response to other events), so you have to treat it almost as multi-threaded in protecting variables that have an indeterminate state while you are computing.
"Is there a special feature in event driven programming which would enable me to just write the process in one function call and be able to let the mainThread do its job when its waiting?"
That would be a non-blocking process.
But your original query was, "How can I implement a blocking process in a single slot without freezing the GUI?"
Perhaps what you're looking for a way to stop other processing when some - any - process decides it's time to block? There are typically ways to do this, yes, by calling a method on one of the parental objects, which, of course, will depend on the specific objects you are using (eg a frame).
Look to the parent objects and see what methods they have that you'd like to use. You may need to overlay one of them to get your exactly desired results.
If you want to handle a GUI event by beginning a long-running task, and don't want the GUI to wait for the task to finish, you need to do it concurrently, by creating either a thread or a new process to perform the task.
You may be able to avoid creating a thread or process if the task is I/O-bound and occasional callbacks to handle I/O would suffice. I'm not familiar with Qt's main loop, but I know that GTK's supports adding event sources that can integrate into a select() or poll()-style loop, running handlers after either a timeout or when a file descriptor becomes ready. If that's the sort of task you have, you could make your event handler add such an event source to the application's main loop.