I am taking over maintenance of a multi-file golang program and now trying to understand the code flow. One feature of golang is the use of channels for sending values to another part of the code base. This feature can make tracing and understanding the code flow difficult, as the execution will resume at the receiving end of the channel, which may well be in a different file and may have a different name.
When reading through the code, I can see where data is being sent to a channel, but I do not see an intuitive or easy way to figure out where it is being received.
Is there a way in gloang to find out where (as in filename:linenum) a data sent through a channel is received?
No, because multiple places can receive from the same channel, and multiple instances of the same function can be receiving from different channels. Your best bet is to follow the channel itself around - look at where it's created, then what it gets passed to, and find what is receiving from it that way.
Related
TL;DR I want to have the functionality where a channel has two extra fields that tell the producer whether it is allowed to send to the channel and if so tell the producer what value the consumer expects. Although I know how to do it with shared memory, I believe that this approach goes against Go's ideology of "Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating."
Context:
I wish to have a server S that runs (besides others) three goroutines:
Listener that just receives UDP packets and sends them to the demultplexer.
Demultiplexer that takes network packets and based on some data sends it into one of several channels
Processing task which listens to one specific channel and processes data received on that channel.
To check whether some devices on the network are still alive, the processing task will periodically send out nonces over the network and then wait for k seconds. In those k seconds, other participants of my protocol that received the nonce will send a reply containing (besides other information) the nonce. The demultiplexer will receive the packets from the listener, parse them and send them to the processing_channel. After the k seconds elapsed, the processing task processes the messages pushed onto the processing_channel by the demultiplexer.
I want the demultiplexer to not just blindly send any response (of the correct type) it received onto the the processing_channel, but to instead check whether the processing task is currently even expecting any messages and if so which nonce value it expects. I made this design decision in order to drop unwanted packets a soon as possible.
My approach:
In other languages, I would have a class with the following fields (in pseudocode):
class ActivatedChannel{
boolean flag_expecting_nonce;
int expected_nonce;
LinkedList chan;
}
The demultiplexer would then upon receiving a packet of the correct type simply acquire the lock for the ActivatedChannel processing_channel object, check whether the flag is set and the nonce matches, and if so add the message to the LinkedList chan!
Problem:
This approach makes use of locks and shared memory, which does not align with Golang's "Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating" mantra. Hence, I would like to know... :
... whether my approach is "bad" regarding Go in the sense that it relies on shared memory.
... how to achieve the outlined result in a more Go-like way.
Yes, the approach described by you doesn't align with Golang's Idiomatic way of implementation. And you have rightly pointed out that in the above approach you are communicating by sharing memory.
To achieve this in Go's Idiomatic way, one of the approaches could be that your Demultiplexer "remembers" all the processing_channels that are expecting nonce and the corresponding type of the nonce. Whenever a processing_channels is ready to receive a reply, it sends a signal to the Demultiplexe saying that it is expecting a reply.
Since Demultiplexer is at the center of all the communication it can maintain a mapping between a processing_channel & the corresponding nonce it expects. It can also maintain a "registry" of all the processing_channels which are expecting a reply.
In this approach, we are Sharing memory by communicating
For communicating that a processing_channel is expecting a reply, the following struct can be used:
type ChannelState struct {
ChannelId string // unique identifier for processing channel
IsExpectingNonce bool
ExpectedNonce int
}
In this approach, there is no lock used.
I need several functions to have the same channel as a parameter and take the same data, simultaneously.
Each of these functions has an independent task from each other, but they start from the same value.
For example, given a slice of integers, one function calculates the sum of its values and another calculates the average, at the same time. They would be goroutines.
One solution would be to create multiple channels from one value, but I want to avoid that. I might have to add or remove functions and for this, I would have to add or remove channels.
I think I understand that the Fan Out pattern could be an option, but I can't quite understand its implementation.
The question is against the rules of SO—as it does not present any concrete problem to be helped with but rather requests a tutoring session.
Anyway, two pointers for further research: basically—given the property of channel that each receive consumes a value sent to it, so it's impossible to read a once sent value multiple times,—such problems have two approaches to their solutions.
The first approach, which is what called a "fan-out", is to have all the consumers have a "personal" dedicated channel, copy the value to be broadcast as many times as there are consumers and send each copy to each of those dedicated channels.
The ostensibly most natural way to implement this is to have a single channel to which the producer sends its units of work—not caring how much consumers are to read them—and then have a dedicated goroutine receive those units of work, copy each of them and send the copies out to the dedicated channels of the consumers.
The second approach is to go lower level and implement basically the same scheme using stuff from the sync package.
One can think of the following scheme:
Have a custom struct type which has a sync.Mutex protecting the type's state.
Have a field which keeps the value multiple consumers have to read.
Have a counter in that type.
Have a sync.Cond in that type as well.
Have a channel with capacity there 1 as well.
Communicating a new value to the consumers looks like this:
Lock the mutex.
Verify the counter is 0, panic otherwise.
Write the new value into the respective field.
Set the counter to the number of consumers.
Unlock the mutex.
Pulse the sync.Cond.
The consumers are supposed to sleep in a wait call on that sync.Cond.
Once the sender pulses it, the goroutines running the code of consumers get woken up and try to read the value.
Reading of the value rolls like this:
Lock the mutex.
Verify the counter is greater than zero, panic otherwise.
Read the value.
Decrement the counter by one.
If the counter becomes 0, send on that special channel.
Unlock the mutex.
The channel is needed to communicate to the sender that all the consumers are done with their reads: before attempting to send the new value the consumer has to read from that channel.
As you can probably see, the second approach is way more involved and hard to get right, so I'd recommend to go with the first one.
I would also note that you seem to lack certain background knowledge on how to go around implementing concurrently running and communicating tasks.
I hereby recommend reading The Book and at least these chapters of The Blog:
Go Concurrency Patterns: Pipelines and cancellation.
Go Concurrency Patterns: Timing out, moving on
Advanced Go Concurrency Patterns
Can I publisher service receive data from an external source and send them to the subscribers?
In the wuserver.cpp example, the data are generated from the same script.
Can I write a ZMQ_PUBLISHER entity, which receives data from external data source / application ... ?
In this affirmation:
There is one more important thing to know about PUB-SUB sockets: you do not know precisely when a subscriber starts to get messages. Even if you start a subscriber, wait a while, and then start the publisher, the subscriber will always miss the first messages that the publisher sends. This is because as the subscriber connects to the publisher (something that takes a small but non-zero time), the publisher may already be sending messages out.
Does this mean, that a PUB-SUB ZeroMQ pattern is performed to a best effort - UDP style?
Q1: Can I write a ZMQ_PUBLISHER entity, which receives data from external data source/application?
A1: Oh sure, this is why ZeroMQ is so helping us in designing smart distributed-systems. Just imagine the PUB-side process to also have other { .bind() | .connect() }-calls, so as to establish such other links to data-feeder(s), and you are done to operate the wished to have scheme. In distributed-systems this gives you a new freedom to smart integrate heterogeneous systems to talk to each other in a very efficient way.
Q2:Does this mean, that a PUB-SUB ZeroMQ pattern is performed to a best effort - UDP style?
A2: No, it has another meaning. The newly declared subscriber entities at some uncertain moment start to negotiate their respective subscription-topic filtering and such a ( distributed ) process takes some a-priori unknown time. Unless until the new / changed topic-filter policy was established, there is nothing to go into the SUB-side exgress interface to meet a .recv()-call, so no one can indeed tell, when that will get happened, can he?
On a higher level, there is another well known dichotomy of ZeroMQ -- Zero-Warranty Principle -- expect to either get delivered a complete message or none at all, which prevents the framework users from a need to handle any kind of damaged / inconsistent message-payloads. Either OK, or None. That's a great warranty. The more for distributed-systems.
I'm implementing a mechanism to detect packet loss in ZeroMQ PUSH/PULL socket type.
1) I was wondering if kvmsg can be used for the same?
2) I would like the client to detect gaps in sequence numbers if there are any loss of packets and implement a resend mechanism accordingly.
Assuming that kvmsg can cope with arbitrary message structures, then yes. Alternatives include Google Protocol Buffers, XML, etc.
In general one does this by adding a field to the messages that you send, perhaps called "sequence". The software you've written for the PUSH end will set this to zero for the very first message, 1 for the next, incrementing by 1 for each message. The PULL end then simply checks the sequence.
However, the real question is, why is this required by your application? ZMQ guarantees ( in normal circumstances ) delivery of messages. That's kinda the whole point of it. PUSH/PULL means that exactly one PULLer will receive a PUSHed message. If you have one PUSH and one PULL, every PUSHed message will be delivered in the correct order with no loss to the PULLer, barring catastrophic network failures. AFAIK it will even deal with temporary network problems for you, managing reconnection, etc, and still deliver messages in the correct order.
Messages that cannot be sent because the outgoing queue on the PUSH end is full will result in the zmq_send() returning an error, so the PUSH end already knows that a message wasn't sent.
Is there something else more complex about the application?
Using Event-machine and Ruby. Currently I'm making a game were at the end of the turn it checks if other user there. When sending data to the user using ws.send() how can I check if the user actually got the data or is alternative solution?
As the library doesn't provide you with access to the underlying protocol elements, you need to add elements to your application protocol to do this. A typical approach is to add an identifier to each message and response to messages with acknowledgement messages that contain those identifiers.
Note that such an approach will only help you to have a better idea of what has been received by a client. There is no assurance of particular state in the case of errors. An example would be losing a connection after the client as sent an ACK, but the service has not received it.
As a result of the complexity I just mentioned, it is often easier to try to make most operations idempotent - that is able to be replayed without detriment to the system, and to replay readily during/after error conditions. You may additionally find a way to periodically synchronize the relevant state entirely, to avoid the long term continuation of minor errors introduced by loss of data/a connection.