I have a spring Webflux Annotated controller as below,
#RestController
public class TestBlockingController {
Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(this.getClass().getName());
#GetMapping()
public Mono<String> blockForXSeconds(#RequestParam("block-seconds") Integer blockSeconds) {
return getStringMono();
}
private Mono<String> getStringMono() {
Integer blockSeconds = 5;
String type = new String();
try {
if (blockSeconds % 2 == 0) {
Thread.sleep(blockSeconds * 1000);
type = "EVEN";
} else {
Thread.sleep(blockSeconds * 1000);
type = "ODD";
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.info("Got Exception");
}
log.info("Type of block-seconds: " + blockSeconds);
return Mono.just(type);
}
}
How do I make getStringMono run in a different thread than Netty server threads. The problem I am facing is that as I am running in server thread I am getting basically less throughput (2 requests per second). How do I go about making running getStringMono in a separate thread.
You can use subscribeOn operator to delegate the task to a different threadpool:
Mono.defer(() -> getStringMono()).subscribeOn(Schedulers.elastic());
Although, you have to note that this type of blocking should be avoided in a reactive application at any cost. If possible, use a client which supports non-blocking IO and returns a promise type (Mono, CompletableFuture, etc.). If you just want to have an artificial delay, then use Mono.delay instead.
You can use Mono.defer() method.
The method signature is as:
public static <T> Mono<T> defer(Supplier<? extends Mono<? extends T>> supplier)
Your Rest API should look like this.
#GetMapping()
public Mono<String> blockForXSeconds(#RequestParam("block-seconds") Integer blockSeconds) {
return Mono.defer(() -> getStringMono());
}
The defer operator is there to make this source lazy, re-evaluating the content of the lambda each time there is a new subscriber. This will increase your API throughput.
Here you can view the detailed analysis.
Related
Is it possible to process multiple amqp - messages in parallel with the same method annotated with #Incoming("queue") with quarkus and smallrye-reactive-messaging?
To be more precise, I have following class:
#ApplicationScoped
public class Receiver {
#Incoming("test-queue")
public void process(String input) {
System.out.println("start processing:" + input);
try {
Thread.sleep(10_000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("end processing:" + input);
}
}
With the configuration in the application.properties:
amqp-host: localhost
amqp-port: 5672
amqp-username: quarkus
amqp-password: quarkus
mp.messaging.incoming.test-queue.connector: smallrye-amqp
mp.messaging.incoming.test-queue.address: test-queue
Now I'd like define by configuration how many parallel processing of messages are possible. For example, on a 4 core cpu it should run 4 in parallel.
Currently I can just add 4 copies of the method with different names to allow this parallelism, but that is not configurable.
I'm not sure, but I don't think Reactive Messaging supports what you're asking for.
You can, however, do what you want another way. I think it's also a better overall pattern for using messaging.
http://smallrye.io/smallrye-reactive-messaging/smallrye-reactive-messaging/2.5/amqp/amqp.html#amqp-inbound
Find the example with the CompletionStage and the explicit ack(). That variant is asynchronous, so if you combine it with Java's existing concurrency facilities, you'll get efficient parallel processing.
I would send the incoming work to an executor, and then have the executing task ack() when it completes.
I just came across the same scenario and here is how the spec intends for you to handle concurrency:
From eclipse Microprofile spec
Basically, instead of having a class with a method like this:
#Incoming("test-queue")
public void process(String input) {}
You have 2 classes like this:
#ApplicationScoped
public class MessageSubscriberProducer {
#Incoming("test-queue")
public Subscriber<String> createSubscriber() {
return new SubscriberImpl();
}
}
public class SubsciberImpl implements Subscriber<String> {
private Subscription subscription;
#Override
public void onSubscribe(Subscription subscription) {
this.subscription = subscription;
this.subscription.request(4); // this tells how many messages to grab right away
}
#Override
public void onNext(String val) {
// do processing
this.subscription.request(1); // grab 1 more
}
}
This has the additional advantage of moving your processing code from the vert.x event-loop thread to a worker thread pool.
In my Spring Webflux API gateway I am receiving a Flux from a microservice via REST:
public Flux<MyObject> getMyObjects(String id) {
Flux<MyObject> myObjects = webClient.get().uri(nextServerUrl + "/myobject" + issueId)
.accept(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
.retrieve()
.bodyToFlux(MyObject.class);
return myObjects;
}
I have to rearrange the information received by the microservice in the API gateway for the response to the client. I tried to do it in two ways:
Use the Flux as far as possible:
private Rearranged createClientResponse(String id) {
Rearranged rearranged = new Rearranged();
Flux<MyObject> myObjects = myObjectService.getMyObjects(id);
rearranged.setMyObjects(myObjects);
myObjects.map(myObject -> {
rearranged.setInfo(myObject.getInfo());
//set more
return myObjects;
});
return rearranged;
}
public class Rearranged {
private Flux<MyObject> myObjects;
//more attributes
}
Result: Following empty object:
{
"information": null,
"myObjects": {
"scanAvailable": true,
"prefetch": -1
}
}
Block the Flux and work with synchronous objects
private Rearranged createClientResponse(String id) {
Rearranged rearranged = new Rearranged();
List<MyObject> myObjects = myObjectService.getMyObjects(id).collectList().block();
rearranged.setMyObjects(myObjects);
rearranged.setInfo(myObjects.get(0).getInfo());
return rearranged;
}
public class Rearranged {
private List<MyObject> myObjects;
//more attributes
}
Result: receiving the exception block()/blockFirst()/blockLast() are blocking which is not supported in thread
What would be the right way to achieve the possibility of rearranging the information from the microservice response to respond to the client?
How would I be able to block for the Flux to complete? I understand that a block is possible when I am returning a "synchronous" object (like I am doing but still getting the exception)?
First of all, your model should not countains reactive stream. Use plain object or list.
public class Rearranged {
private MyObject myObject;
}
Or
public class Rearranged {
private List<MyObject> myObjects;
}
If you block the thread, reactor threads will exhausted in a moments. If your getMyObjects method only receives one object (if not, look at the end of the comment), then you should handle it as a Mono.
Then in the createClientResponse, you have to return with Mono<Rearranged>
Now you can easily map from one Mono to another using the .map method.
private Mono<Rearranged> createClientResponse(String id) {
Mono<MyObject> myObjects = myObjectService.getMyObjects(id);
return myObjects.map(myObject -> {
retrun new Rearranged(myObject)
//create the proper object here
});
}
If you need more object, you can use the same method, for example, the collectList() collect the elements from the Flux<> into Mono<List<>>, then the same method can be accepted.
I am writing a person API using Spring WebFlux functional programming, how to route to different handler functions based on the query param names?
#Bean
public RouterFunction<ServerResponse> route(PersonHandler personHandler) {
return RouterFunctions.route(GET("/people/{id}").and(accept(APPLICATION_JSON)), personHandler::get)
.andRoute(GET("/people").and(accept(APPLICATION_JSON)), personHandler::all)
.andRoute(GET("/people/country/{country}").and(accept(APPLICATION_JSON)), personHandler::getByCountry)
// .andRoute(GET("/people?name={name}").and(accept(APPLICATION_JSON)), personHandler::searchByName)
// .andRoute(GET("/people?age={age}").and(accept(APPLICATION_JSON)), personHandler::searchByAge)
// I am expecting to do something like this
;
}
Or do I need to handle it in the handler function?
like
public Mono<ServerResponse> searchPeople(ServerRequest serverRequest) {
final Optional<String> name = serverRequest.queryParam("name");
final Optional<String> age = serverRequest.queryParam("age");
Flux<People> result;
if(name.isPresent()){
result = name.map(peopleRepository::searchByName)
.orElseThrow();
} else if(age.isPresent()){
result = name.map(peopleRepository::searchByage)
.orElseThrow();
}
return ok().contentType(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON).body(result, People.class);
}
What is the best way to do it?
Thanks
You can create your own RequestPredicate and use the existing infrastructure (by plugging it into a and()):
public static RequestPredicate hasQueryParam(String name) {
return RequestPredicates.queryParam(name, p -> StringUtils.hasText(p));
}
I've just started with Vert.x and would like to understand what is the right way of handling potentially long (blocking) operations as part of processing a REST HttpRequest. The application itself is a Spring app.
Here is a simplified REST service I have so far:
public class MainApp {
// instantiated by Spring
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService);
}
}
public class AlertsRestService extends AbstractVerticle {
// instantiated by Spring
private PostgresService pgService;
#Value("${rest.endpoint.port:8080}")
private int restEndpointPort;
#Override
public void start(Future<Void> futureStartResult) {
HttpServer server = vertx.createHttpServer();
Router router = Router.router(vertx);
//enable reading of the request body for all routes
router.route().handler(BodyHandler.create());
router.route(HttpMethod.GET, "/allDefinitions")
.handler(this::handleGetAllDefinitions);
server.requestHandler(router)
.listen(restEndpointPort,
result -> {
if (result.succeeded()) {
futureStartResult.complete();
} else {
futureStartResult.fail(result.cause());
}
}
);
}
private void handleGetAllDefinitions( RoutingContext routingContext) {
HttpServerResponse response = routingContext.response();
Collection<AlertDefinition> allDefinitions = null;
try {
allDefinitions = pgService.getAllDefinitions();
} catch (Exception e) {
response.setStatusCode(500).end(e.getMessage());
}
response.putHeader("content-type", "application/json")
.setStatusCode(200)
.end(Json.encodePrettily(allAlertDefinitions));
}
}
Spring config:
<bean id="alertsRestService" class="com.my.AlertsRestService"
p:pgService-ref="postgresService"
p:restEndpointPort="${rest.endpoint.port}"
/>
<bean id="mainApp" class="com.my.MainApp"
p:alertsRestService-ref="alertsRestService"
/>
Now the question is: how to properly handle the (blocking) call to my postgresService, which may take longer time if there are many items to get/return ?
After researching and looking at some examples, I see a few ways to do it, but I don't fully understand differences between them:
Option 1. convert my AlertsRestService into a Worker Verticle and use the worker thread pool:
public class MainApp {
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions().setWorker(true);
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService, options);
}
}
What confuses me here is this statement from the Vert.x docs: "Worker verticle instances are never executed concurrently by Vert.x by more than one thread, but can [be] executed by different threads at different times"
Does it mean that all HTTP requests to my alertsRestService are going to be, effectively, throttled to be executed sequentially, by one thread at a time? That's not what I would like: this service is purely stateless and should be able to handle concurrent requests just fine ....
So, maybe I need to look at the next option:
Option 2. convert my service to be a multi-threaded Worker Verticle, by doing something similar to the example in the docs:
public class MainApp {
private AlertsRestService alertsRestService;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions()
.setWorker(true)
.setInstances(5) // matches the worker pool size below
.setWorkerPoolName("the-specific-pool")
.setWorkerPoolSize(5);
Vertx.vertx().deployVerticle(alertsRestService, options);
}
}
So, in this example - what exactly will be happening? As I understand, ".setInstances(5)" directive means that 5 instances of my 'alertsRestService' will be created. I configured this service as a Spring bean, with its dependencies wired in by the Spring framework. However, in this case, it seems to me the 5 instances are not going to be created by Spring, but rather by Vert.x - is that true? and how could I change that to use Spring instead?
Option 3. use the 'blockingHandler' for routing. The only change in the code would be in the AlertsRestService.start() method in how I define a handler for the router:
boolean ordered = false;
router.route(HttpMethod.GET, "/allDefinitions")
.blockingHandler(this::handleGetAllDefinitions, ordered);
As I understand, setting the 'ordered' parameter to TRUE means that the handler can be called concurrently. Does it mean this option is equivalent to the Option #2 with multi-threaded Worker Verticles?
What is the difference? that the async multi-threaded execution pertains to the one specific HTTP request only (the one for the /allDefinitions path) as opposed to the whole AlertsRestService Verticle?
Option 4. and the last option I found is to use the 'executeBlocking()' directive explicitly to run only the enclosed code in worker threads. I could not find many examples of how to do this with HTTP request handling, so below is my attempt - maybe incorrect. The difference here is only in the implementation of the handler method, handleGetAllAlertDefinitions() - but it is rather involved... :
private void handleGetAllAlertDefinitions(RoutingContext routingContext) {
vertx.executeBlocking(
fut -> { fut.complete( sendAsyncRequestToDB(routingContext)); },
false,
res -> { handleAsyncResponse(res, routingContext); }
);
}
public Collection<AlertDefinition> sendAsyncRequestToDB(RoutingContext routingContext) {
Collection<AlertDefinition> allAlertDefinitions = new LinkedList<>();
try {
alertDefinitionsDao.getAllAlertDefinitions();
} catch (Exception e) {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(e.getMessage());
}
return allAlertDefinitions;
}
private void handleAsyncResponse(AsyncResult<Object> asyncResult, RoutingContext routingContext){
if(asyncResult.succeeded()){
try {
routingContext.response().putHeader("content-type", "application/json")
.setStatusCode(200)
.end(Json.encodePrettily(asyncResult.result()));
} catch(EncodeException e) {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(e.getMessage());
}
} else {
routingContext.response().setStatusCode(500)
.end(asyncResult.cause());
}
}
How is this different form other options? And does Option 4 provide concurrent execution of the handler or single-threaded like in Option 1?
Finally, coming back to the original question: what is the most appropriate Option for handling longer-running operations when handling REST requests?
Sorry for such a long post.... :)
Thank you!
That's a big question, and I'm not sure I'll be able to address it fully. But let's try:
In Option #1 what it actually means is that you shouldn't use ThreadLocal in your worker verticles, if you use more than one worker of the same type. Using only one worker means that your requests will be serialised.
Option #2 is simply incorrect. You cannot use setInstances with instance of a class, only with it's name. You're correct, though, that if you choose to use name of the class, Vert.x will instantiate them.
Option #3 is less concurrent than using Workers, and shouldn't be used.
Option #4 executeBlocking is basically doing Option #3, and is also quite bad.
I am running RxJava and creating a subject to use onNext() method to produce data. I am using Spring.
This is my setup:
#Component
public class SubjectObserver {
private SerializedSubject<SomeObj, SomeObj> safeSource;
public SubjectObserver() {
safeSource = PublishSubject.<SomeObj>create().toSerialized();
**safeSource.subscribeOn(<my taskthreadExecutor>);**
**safeSource.observeOn(<my taskthreadExecutor>);**
safeSource.subscribe(new Subscriber<AsyncRemoteRequest>() {
#Override
public void onNext(AsyncRemoteRequest asyncRemoteRequest) {
LOGGER.debug("{} invoked.", Thread.currentThread().getName());
doSomething();
}
}
}
public void publish(SomeObj myObj) {
safeSource.onNext(myObj);
}
}
The way new data is generated on the RxJava stream is by #Autowire private SubjectObserver subjectObserver
and then calling subjectObserver.publish(newDataObjGenerated)
No matter what I specify for subscribeOn() & observeOn():
Schedulers.io()
Schedulers.computation()
my threads
Schedulers.newThread
The onNext() and the actual work inside it is done on the same thread that actually calls the onNext() on the subject to generate/produce data.
Is this correct? If so, what am I missing? I was expecting the doSomething() to be done on a different thread.
Update
In my calling class, if I change the way I am invoking the publish method, then of course a new thread is allocated for the subscriber to run on.
taskExecutor.execute(() -> subjectObserver.publish(newlyGeneratedObj));
Thanks,
Each operator on Observable/Subject return a new instance with the extra behavior, however, your code just applies the subscribeOn and observeOn then throws away whatever they produced and subscribes to the raw Subject. You should chain the method calls and then subscribe:
safeSource = PublishSubject.<AsyncRemoteRequest>create().toSerialized();
safeSource
.subscribeOn(<my taskthreadExecutor>)
.observeOn(<my taskthreadExecutor>)
.subscribe(new Subscriber<AsyncRemoteRequest>() {
#Override
public void onNext(AsyncRemoteRequest asyncRemoteRequest) {
LOGGER.debug("{} invoked.", Thread.currentThread().getName());
doSomething();
}
});
Note that subscribeOn has no practical effect on a PublishSubject because there is no subscription side-effect happening in its subscribe() method.