I have a small issue with doing a blocking operation in Spring Webflux. I retrieve a list of article documents and from the list of article documents, i would like to update another object.
When i execute the below, sometimes it works and sometimes it throws a "block()/blockFirst()/blockLast() are blocking, which is not supported in thread reactor-http-nio-2". Could you please suggest how to fix. I dont really want to make it blocking but not sure how to proceed. There are similar threads in stackoverflow but not with respective to my requirement.
It would be really nice if someone could suggest a way to work around ?
private OrderInfo setPrices(final OrderInfo orderInfo) {
final List<ArticleDocument> articleDocuments = getArticleDocuments(orderInfo).block(); // Problematic line
for (ArticleDocument article : articleDocuments) {
//Update orderInfo based on one of the article price and few more condition.
}
return orderInfo;
}
private Mono<List<ArticleDocument>> getArticleDocuments(final OrderInfo orderInfo) {
return this.articleRepository.findByArticleName(orderInfo.getArticleName()).collectList();
}
It has to be something like this. Please take note that I have not tested it on my IDE. To modify anything please comment and figure it out together.
private Mono<OrderInfo> setPrices(final OrderInfo orderInfo) {
getArticleDocuments(orderInfo)
.map(articleDocuments -> {
articleDocuments.forEach(article -> // UPDATE AS YOU NEED);
return orderInfo;
});
private Mono<List<ArticleDocument>> getArticleDocuments(final OrderInfo orderInfo) {
return this.articleRepository.findByArticleName(orderInfo.getArticleName()).collectList();
}
Remember, you have to put everything under chaining. that's why you have to return Mono<OrderInfo> instead of OrderInfo from setPrices method. If you find my suggested code is tough to adapt to your current coding structure, you can show me the full code. Let's find out we can build a good chain or not.
BTW, you were using getArticleDocuments(orderInfo).block();. See? you were using .block()? Don't do that in a chain. don't ever block anything in a request to the response chain process. you will return mono or flux from the controller and everything will be handled by webflux
Related
I have list of answers on questions. I want to save those answers and then (after mongo gives them an id) add them to their questions.
Now I'm doing it this way:
public Flux<Answer> createAnswers(List<Answer> answers) {
return answerRepository.saveAll(answers)
.map(answer -> {
questionRepository.findById(answer.getQuestionId())
.subscribe(question -> {
question.getAnswers().removeIf(ans -> Objects.equals(ans.getId(), answer.getId()));
question.getAnswers().add(answer);
questionRepository.save(question).block();
});
return answer;
});
}
I also tried with ..saveAll(answers).doOnNext() and doOnEach() but this way questions are not saved.
It seems that map is used to transform data but not for doing operations on each element. Also I'm a bit confused with call to block().
Is there a better way to achieve my aim?
You should never call subscribe/block on a Flux or a Mono within a method that returns a reactive type itself.
Doing so will decouple the current pipeline with what you're trying to achieve. Best case scenario, this will break backpressure support. In many cases, this might also break in surprising ways; for example, if your method is dealing with HTTP request/response or a session of some sort, the response/session might get closed with your other subscriber is trying to do something on it still.
I believe something like this is more consistent (although I'm missing a lot of context here, so it might not be the best way to achieve this):
public Flux<Answer> createAnswers(List<Answer> answers) {
return answerRepository.saveAll(answers)
.flatMap(answer -> {
return questionRepository
.findById(answer.getQuestionId())
.flatMap(question -> {
question.getAnswers().removeIf(ans -> Objects.equals(ans.getId(), answer.getId()));
question.getAnswers().add(answer);
return questionRepository.save(question);
})
.thenReturn(answer);
});
}
So I have a spring batch app that I have getting a list of ids that it then uses 'read()' on to get 1 to many results back. The issue is, I have no control over how many results I get back for each id meaning that my chunking is spotty at best. Is there a suggested way to avoid spikes in memory/cpu? An example is below:
#Before
public void getIds() {
*getListOfIds* //Usually around 10,000 or so
}
#Override
public AccountObject read() {
if(list of ids havent all been used) {
List<AccountObject> myAccounts = myService.getAccounts(id);
return myAccounts; //This could be anywhere from 1 result to 100,000 results.
} else {
return null;
}
}
So the myAccounts object above could be small or huge. This causes chunking to basically be useless because at the moment I am chunking by List. I'd really rather chunk by straight AccountObject but don't see an easy way to do this.
Is there a class, strategy, etc. that I am missing here?
The return statement is being used in void methods to break out of the logic here. The problem is the consumers of the method wouldn’t know whether the logic in the method ran completely or not, when we do this. However my architect and teams don't agree with that. The reason is that the current consumer in this case doesn't care about the outcome.
I think this is coding anti-pattern. It is like eating exception with out bubbling it up. What's everyone's opinion on this?
Existing code:
Private void XXX(final String parameter) {
try {
if (parameter==null){
return;
}
....
}
My version
Private boolean XXX(final String parameter) {
try {
if (parameter==null){
return false;
}
....
return true;
}
In general having multiple returns is not necessarily an anti-pattern. At worst there might be many exit points in the method which can be confusing for developers who are reading the code and perhaps make it harder to maintain...maybe but that is not what you seem to be asking.
The code samples you provided appear to me to both be anti-patterns.
The problem is the consumers of the method wouldn’t know whether the logic in the method ran completely or not, when we do this.
First, that is what Exceptions are for. If there is a problem while executing the code in the method, throw an Exception with an intent revealing type and a good message describing the problem.
The first version of your code:
Private void XXX(final String parameter) {
try {
if (parameter==null){
return;
}
....
}
seemed to return instead of throwing an Exception with an invalid argument.
The second version of the code:
Private boolean XXX(final String parameter) {
try {
if (parameter==null){
return false;
}
....
return true;
}
Seems to return a boolean as an exit code of "worked" or "didn't work". This isn't very helpful because if it didn't work, you don't know why. Also it requires the calling code to check the return value which they might forget to do.
There's nothing wrong with having an explicit return for a void method. However, it is good general practice--if possible--to have just one return from a method (although you can have more than one if logic demands it and you write the code as simply as possible--no blocks--so that the overall flow is not obfuscated).
Should you simply return in the case you cite? It all depends on the requirements. Your customers appear to be the programmers who will call this method. Do they consider a null parameter to be a logic error for the method or do they consider it to be valid?
If it's the former then I suggest you use an annotation (#NotNull) to ensure that parameter is not null. Unfortunately, there are several of these to choose from so you will have to figure out which suits your architecture best.
If you really don't want to use an annotation (and null is considered an error) then throw an exception.
I am some need help understanding the latest recommended approach to wire up and use reactiveui for a WPF project.
In doing research on the internet on reactiveui I came across various (few) posts spanning a long time period during which the library evolved with the unfortunate result that some of these how-to articles now refer to older ways of doing things which are no longer applicable
I am trying to understand the recommended way to wire up commands (usually to invoke web service which returns a DTO) and I’ve found multiple ways mentioned to do it.
My current understanding is that
// this is the first thing to do
MyCommand = ReactiveCommand.Create()
// variations to wire up the delegates / tasks to be invoked
MyCommand.CreateAsyncTask()
MyCommand.CreateAsyncFunc()
MyCommand.CreateAsyncAction()
// this seems to be only way to wire handler for receiving result
MyCommand.Subscribe
// not sure if these below are obsolete?
MyCommand.ExecuteAsync
MyCommand.RegisterAsyncTask()
Could someone try to explain which of these variations is the latest API and which are obsolete, with perhaps a few words about when to use each of them
The changes on the ReactiveCommand API are documented in this blog post:
http://log.paulbetts.org/whats-new-in-reactiveui-6-reactivecommandt/
The first option - ReactiveCommand.Create() - just creates a reactive command.
To define a command which asynchronously returns data from a service you would use :
MyCommand = ReactiveCommand.CreateAsyncTask(
canExec, // optional
async _ => await api.LoadSomeData(...));
You may use the Subscribe method to handle data when it is received:
this.Data = new ReactiveList<SomeDTO>();
MyCommand.Subscribe(items =>
{
this.Data.Clear();
foreach (var item in items)
this.Data.Add(item);
}
Though, the simplest thing is to use instead the ToProperty method like this:
this._data = MyCommand
.Select(items => new ReactiveList<SomeDTO>(items))
.ToProperty(this, x => x.Data);
where you have defined an output property for Data:
private readonly ObservableAsPropertyHelper<ReactiveList<SomeDTO>> _data;
public ReactiveList<SomeDTO> Data
{
get { return _data.Value; }
}
I'm new to Google's Guava library and am interested in Guava's Caching package. Currently I have version 10.0.1 downloaded. After reviewing the documentation, the JUnit tests source code and even after searching google extensively, I still can't figure out how to use the Caching package. The documentation is very short, as if it was written for someone who has been using Guava's library not for a newbie like me. I just wish there are more real world examples on how to use Caching package propertly.
Let say I want to build a cache of 10 non expiring items with Least Recently Used (LRU) eviction method. So from the example found in the api, I build my code like the following:
Cache<String, String> mycache = CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
.maximumSize(10)
.build(
new CacheLoader<String, String>() {
public String load(String key) throws Exception {
return something; // ?????
}
});
Since the CacheLoader is required, I have to include it in the build method of CacheBuilder. But I don't know how to return the proper value from mycache.
To add item to mycache, I use the following code:
mycache.asMap().put("key123", "value123");
To get item from mycache, I use this method:
mycache.get("key123")
The get method will always return whatever value I returned from CacheLoader's load method instead of getting the value from mycache. Could someone kindly tell me what I missed?
Guava's Cache type is generally intended to be used as a computing cache. You don't usually add values to it manually. Rather, you tell it how to load the expensive to calculate value for a key by giving it a CacheLoader that contains the necessary code.
A typical example is loading a value from a database or doing an expensive calculation.
private final FooDatabase fooDatabase = ...;
private final LoadingCache<Long, Foo> cache = CacheBuilder.newBuilder()
.maximumSize(10)
.build(new CacheLoader<Long, Foo>() {
public Foo load(Long id) {
return fooDatabase.getFoo(id);
}
});
public Foo getFoo(long id) {
// never need to manually put a Foo in... will be loaded from DB if needed
return cache.getUnchecked(id);
}
Also, I tried the example you gave and mycache.get("key123") returned "value123" as expected.