parallel call using rxjava 1 - java-8

Scenario - To make a service call for certain items (suppose 4 items) which will update DB. Sequence doesn't matter. All service calls are independent of each other but wait till all the calls are completed, so want to go for parallel calls using rxjava 1.x
Now, the problem that I'm facing is update service doesn't return anything if it is successful.
public class DbClient {
public void update(SomeObject someObject) {
//update logic
}
}
//client code to call update method
public void processUpdate(Map<String, SomeObject> map) {
map.entrySet.stream.forEach(entry -> {
dbClient.update(entry.getValue()); // how can I call this parallely using rxjava 1.x
});
}

Note that RxJava 1 is outdated and no longer supported or maintained as a library.
You can flatMap each map element onto its own reactive action to have them run concurrently:
Observable.from(map.entrySet())
.flatMap(entry ->
Observable.create(emitter -> {
dbClient.update(entry.getValue());
emitter.onCompleted();
})
.subscribeOn(Schedulers.io()),
true, // <------------ aggregate all errors
8 // <---------------- number of concurrent updates you want
)

You can use flatMap operator for parallel executing. Create List<Observable> using map and then executes them using Observable.flatMap. Focus on it.subscribeOn line. The line changes sequence to parallel.
Refer to here
public class MultipleExecutes {
public class DbClient {
Observable<String> update(String someObject) {
// replace what you want.
// Observable.fromCallable() <- consider this
return Observable.just(someObject);
}
}
// client code to call update method
private List<Observable<String>> processUpdate(Map<String, String> map) {
DbClient dbClient = new DbClient();
return map
.entrySet()
.stream()
.map(entry -> dbClient.update(entry.getValue()))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Map<String, String> map = new HashMap<>();
map.put("1", "1");
map.put("2", "2");
map.put("3", "3");
map.put("4", "4");
List<Observable<String>> o = new MultipleExecutes().processUpdate(map);
Observable
.fromIterable(o)
.flatMap(it -> it.subscribeOn(Schedulers.computation())) <-- important line
.subscribe(System.out::println);
Thread.sleep(500);
}
}
Output
4
1
2
3

Related

How to use a Flux inside an object as JSON response?

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.

Running Tasks in different thread in Spring Webflux Annotated controller

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.

CompletableFuture exceptionally breaks the work chain

The idea of using CompletableFuture is because it offers a chain, while the first several steps encapsulate beans before the last step uses it. Because any exception may happen in these steps and exceptionally is used to handle error. However, exceptionally only accepts Throwable argument and so far I haven't found a way to grab those encapsulated beans.
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(this::msgSource)
.thenApply(this::sendMsg).exceptionally(this::errorHandler).thenAccept(this::saveResult)
public List<Msg> msgSource() // take message from somewhere.
public List<Msg> sendMsg(List<Msg>) // exceptions may happen like 403 or timeout
public List<Msg> errorHandler() // set a success flag to false in Msg.
public void saveResult(List<Msg>) // save send result like success or false in data center.
In the above example, comments are the working flow. However, since errorHandler neither accepts List<Msg> nor passes it on, so the chain is broken. How to get the return from msgSource?
EDIT
public class CompletableFutureTest {
private static Logger log = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CompletableFutureTest.class);
public static void main(String[] args) {
CompletableFutureTest test = new CompletableFutureTest();
CompletableFuture future = new CompletableFuture();
future.supplyAsync(test::msgSource)
.thenApply(test::sendMsg).exceptionally(throwable -> {
List<String> list = (List<String>) future.join(); // never complete
return list;
}).thenAccept(test::saveResult);
try {
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private List<String> saveResult(List<String> list) {
return list;
}
private List<String> sendMsg(List<String> list) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
public List<String> msgSource() {
List<String> result = new ArrayList<>();
result.add("1");
result.add("2");
return result;
}
}
A chain implies that each node, i.e. completion stage, uses the result of the previous one. But if the previous stage failed with an exception, there is no such result. It’s a special property of your sendMsg stage that its result is just the same value as it received from the previous stage, but that has no influence on the logic nor API design. If sendMsg fails with an exception, it has no result that the exception handler could use.
If you want to use the result of the msgSource stage in the exceptional case, you don’t have a linear chain any more. But CompletableFuture does allow to model arbitrary dependency graphs, not just linear chains, so you can express it like
CompletableFuture<List<Msg>> source = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(this::msgSource);
source.thenApply(this::sendMsg)
.exceptionally(throwable -> {
List<Msg> list = source.join();
for(Msg m: list) m.success = false;
return list;
})
.thenAccept(this::saveResult);
However, there is no semantic difference nor advantage over
CompletableFuture.runAsync(() -> {
List<Msg> list = msgSource();
try {
list = sendMsg(list);
} catch(Throwable t) {
for(Msg m: list) m.success = false;
}
saveResult(list);
});
which expresses the same logic as an ordinary code flow.

Is there a way to make a custom implementation of Nashorn JSObject work with Object.keys()?

I recently asked this question How can I pass a proper method reference in so Nashorn can execute it? and got an answer that helped me get much further along with my project, but I discovered a limitation around providing a custom JSObject implementation that I don't know how to resolve.
Given this simple working JSObject that can handle most of the methods JS would invoke on it such as map:
import javax.script.*;
import jdk.nashorn.api.scripting.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.function.*;
public class scratch_6 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
ScriptEngineManager m = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine e = m.getEngineByName("nashorn");
// The following JSObject wraps this list
List<Object> l = new ArrayList<>();
l.add("hello");
l.add("world");
l.add(true);
l.add(1);
JSObject jsObj = new AbstractJSObject() {
#Override
public Object getMember(String name) {
if (name.equals("map")) {
// return a functional interface object - nashorn will treat it like
// script function!
final Function<JSObject, Object> jsObjectObjectFunction = callback -> {
List<Object> res = new ArrayList<>();
for (Object obj : l) {
// call callback on each object and add the result to new list
res.add(callback.call(null, obj));
}
// return fresh list as result of map (or this could be another wrapper)
return res;
};
return jsObjectObjectFunction;
} else {
// unknown property
return null;
}
}
};
e.put("obj", jsObj);
// map each String to it's uppercase and print result of map
e.eval("print(obj.map(function(x) '\"'+x.toString()+'\"'))");
//PROBLEM
//e.eval("print(Object.keys(obj))");
}
}
If you uncomment the last line where Object.keys(obj) is called, it will fail with the error ... is not an Object.
This appears to be because Object.keys() [ NativeObject.java:376 ] only checks whether the object is an instance of ScriptObject or of ScriptObjectMirror. If it is neither of those things, it throws the notAnObject error. :(
Ideally, user implemented JSObject objects should be exactly equivalent to script objects. But, user implemented JSObjects are almost script objects - but not quite. This is documented here -> https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/Nashorn/Nashorn+jsr223+engine+notes
Object.keys is one such case where it breaks. However, if you just want for..in javascript iteration support for your objects, you can implement JSObject.keySet in your class.
Example code:
import javax.script.*;
import jdk.nashorn.api.scripting.*;
import java.util.*;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
ScriptEngineManager m = new ScriptEngineManager();
ScriptEngine e = m.getEngineByName("nashorn");
// This JSObject wraps the following Properties object
Properties props = System.getProperties();
JSObject jsObj = new AbstractJSObject() {
#Override
public Set<String> keySet() {
return props.stringPropertyNames();
}
#Override
public Object getMember(String name) {
return props.getProperty(name);
}
};
e.put("obj", jsObj);
e.eval("for (i in obj) print(i, ' = ', obj[i])");
}
}

Is a DeferredResult really improving the parallel execution of requests?

I want to see a "proof" that a controller returning a DeferredResult is really better scaling up to many parallel request, than return just a plain value. To this end I came up with an example like this:
#RestController
#RequestMapping("weather")
public class WeatherController {
ExecutorService executorService;
public WeatherController() {
executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(100);
}
#GetMapping("deferred")
public DeferredResult<Weather> getWeatherDeferred() {
DeferredResult<Weather> result = new DeferredResult<>();
ListenableFutureTask<Weather> futureWeatherList = new ListenableFutureTask<>(
() -> {
Thread.sleep(1000);
return new Weather();
});
futureWeatherList.addCallback((weather) -> {
result.setResult(weather);
}, (throwable) -> {
result.setErrorResult(throwable);
});
executorService.submit(futureWeatherList);
return result;
}
#GetMapping("sync")
public Weather getWeather() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(1000);
return new Weather();
}
}
When I send requests to the deferred and the sync getters from JMeter, I see no difference between the two methods whatsoever. I simulate 100 parallel users and run the requests 100 times. Absolutely no difference.
Can anybody give me an explanation? Does anybody have a better "proof" for the "superiority" of DeferredResults?

Resources