I am trying to make sense of which one should be called before and which one later between wl_display_dispatch and wl_display_roundtrip. I have seen both order so wondering which one is correct.
1st order:
wl_display_get_registry(display); wl_registry_add_listener() // this call is just informational
wl_display_dispatch();
wl_display_roundtrip();
what i think : wl_display_dispatch() will read and dispatch events from display fd, whatever is sent by server but in between server might be still processing requests and for brief time fd might be empty.
wl_display_dispatch returns assuming all events are dispatched. Then wl_display_roundtrip() is called and will block until server has processed all request and put then in event queue. So after this, event queue still has pending events, but there is no call to wl_display_dispatch(). How those pending events will be dispatched ? Is that wl_display_dispatch() wait for server to process all events and then dispatch all events?
2nd order:
wl_display_get_registry(display); wl_registry_add_listener() // this call is just informational
wl_display_roundtrip();
wl_display_dispatch();
In this case, wl_display_roundtrip() wait for server to process all events and put them in event queue, So once this return we can assume all events sent from server are available in queue. Then wl_display_dispatch() is called which will dispatch all pending events.
Order 2nd looks correct and logical to me, as there is no chance of leftover pending events in queue. but I have seen Order 1st in may places including in weston client examples code so I am confused whats the correct order of calling.
It would be great if someone could clarify here.
Thanks in advance
2nd order is correct.
client can't do much without getting proxy(handle for global object). what i mean is client can send request by binding to the global object advertised by server so for this client has to block until all global object are bind in registry listener callback.
for example for client to create surface you need to bind wl_compositor interface then to shell interface to give role and then shm(for share memory) and so on.wl_display_dispatch cannot guaranty all the events are processed if your lucky it may dispatch all events too but cannot guarantee every-time. so you should use wl_display_roundtrip for registry at-least.
I need to send an alert if no event has been received in a topic for a given key during some amount of time. What would be the best approach to solve this use case with KafkaStream ?
I tried:
1) a windowedBy together with a suppress operator:
stream
.groupByKey()
.windowedBy(TimeWindows.of(Duration.ofMillis(1000)).grace(Duration.ZERO))
.count()
.suppress(Suppressed.untilWindowCloses(unbounded()))
.filter((k, v) -> v == 0)
.toStream()
.map((windowId, count) -> KeyValue.pair(windowId.key(), AlarmEvent.builder().build()))
.to(ALARMS, Produced.with(Serdes.String(), AlarmEvent.serde()));
But it seems that the window will not close until an event occurs after the expiration, thus no alarm can be send exactly after the defined timeout.
2) Using processor API with a punctator, it seems to work but I only tested with a TopologyTestDriver and advanceWallClockTime(). Not sure this advanceWallClockTime() relflects real time advance, or would only change upon event reception, thus falling back to the problem in 1).
3) If punctuator works, I would like to use it in a ValueTranformer to benefit from the DSL topology. However, I am encountering the problem described in How to forward event downstream from a Punctuator instance in a ValueTransformer?. Cannot send event downstream from the punctuator instance.
4) Finally, I had the idea to inject some dummy events on a regular basis (eg. every second) for every partitions so as to artificially force the inner clock to advance. This would allows me to use the clean and simple DSL window and suppress operators.
2) Using processor API with a punctator, it seems to work but I only tested with a TopologyTestDriver and advanceWallClockTime(). Not sure this advanceWallClockTime() relflects real time advance, or would only change upon event reception, thus falling back to the problem in 1).
That is the right approach. As the name indicate, punctuations can be triggered based on wall-clock time (ie, system time). TopologyTestDriver mocks wall-clock time for testing purpose, but KafkaStreams will use system time.
3) If punctuator works, I would like to use it in a ValueTranformer to benefit from the DSL topology. However, I am encountering the problem described in How to forward event downstream from a Punctuator instance in a ValueTransformer?. Cannot send event downstream from the punctuator instance.
You need to use transform() instead. Emitting data via forward() is no allowed in punctuations of a ValueTransformer because you could emit any key, violating that contract of a non-modified key.
4) Finally, I had the idea to inject some dummy events on a regular basis (eg. every second) for every partitions so as to artificially force the inner clock to advance. This would allows me to use the clean and simple DSL window and suppress operators.
That should work, too.
I have a defined ApplicationEvent and a series of its listeners. The listeners are properly arranged with the Ordered interface.
Amidst the execution of my first listener, there are business-level checks that determines whether the rest of logic (from subsequent listeners) shall apply. If this check fails, all of the subsequent event listeners should not be executed.
The business-level context is not available to the event publisher hence I am not able to do checks before publishing the event.
Solutions I myself can think of:
Throwing an uncheck exception. This is what I am currently doing but does not look clean
Performing the check at the start of every subsequent listeners. This wastes a lot of resources doing repetitive checks and is error prone, since new listeners (without implementing the Ordered interface) may be added.
Making the first listener the only one that listens to this type of event, and after it processes it, publish the event wrapped in another type. This seem like the way to go however I just want to understand if there are better alternatives.
Thank you!
Morning,
I'm using the SimpleEvent bus to send data from my centralized data reviver to the Widgets. This works really fine, I get one set of new Data form the server, the success method of the RPC call puts it on the Eventbus, each widget looks if the data is for it, if yes it 'displays' it, if not, it does nothing.There is only one data set per request and the widgets don't depend on other data being already sent.
Now I have a Tree widget. The child nodes of the Tree are created throw this data sets too, and this child nodes register itself to the Eventbus to revive the data for their child nodes. The data shall be received in on rush (for performance reasons obv), so I will get multiple data sets which are put on the Eventbus at the 'same time' (in a for loop). I only control the order in which they are put there (first the root, then the data for the first child......). How does the Eventbus now proceeds the events?
Does he wait till the first event is completed, so the first child of
the tree already finished creation and register itself to the
Eventbus, to revive the data to create it's child's.
Does he handle them simultaneous, so a widget isn't even registered to the Eventbus.
Does he mix up the order?!?!
Current solution approaches:
The best solution I can think of, is to only put new events on the
Eventbus when the previous got completed. However I found a method
which does so, or if it is the standard behavior of the Eventbus .
Fire a request processing finished event, when a event was processed by a widget. Yucks... this leads to a lot of additional code and causes big problems, when data is put on the Eventbus which doesn't belong to any widget....
Register a static variable which is set to true when the request got handled and the Eventbus waits this long till he puts the next request on the Eventbus (Quiet similar to two, but way worse coding style and the same problems)
All events are handled by the root tree element, which sends them upwards to the respective child's.
Which solution would you prefer and why?
Regards,
Stefan
PS: my favorite answer would be that 1. is the standard behavior of the Eventbus^^
PPS: The solution should also be working on when introducing Webworkers.
The EventBus#fireEvent is synchronous. It's by design. You can pass an event to the bus, have handlers possibly modify it, and when execution returns to your method you can check the event; this is used for PlaceChangeRequestEvent and its setMessage for instance.
FYI, if a handler throws an exception, it won't prevent other handlers from being executed. The fireEvent will then wrap the exceptions (plural; several handlers can throw) in an UmbrellaException.
Although EventBus is a nice way of de-coupling parts of your application it doesn't mean it should be "overused".
I also think you should be careful not to circumvent the asynchronous behavior of your client-side code by introducing synchronous/blocking like behavior.
Javascript is single threaded so I don't think you can have two events at the same time. They will be executed one after the other.
If you fire an event on the EventBus (i.e. SimpleEventBus) it will just iterator through the list of attached handlers and execute them. If no handler is attached nothing happens.
I personally would prefer the 4th. approach especially if you plan to use a CellTree some time in the future. The Tree widget/CellTree widget handles the event and constructs its structure by traversing through the object.
The documentation for the Win32 API PulseEvent() function (kernel32.dll) states that this function is “… unreliable and should not be used by new applications. Instead, use condition variables”. However, condition variables cannot be used across process boundaries like (named) events can.
I have a scenario that is cross-process, cross-runtime (native and managed code) in which a single producer occasionally has something interesting to make known to zero or more consumers. Right now, a well-known named event is used (and set to signaled state) by the producer using this PulseEvent function when it needs to make something known. Zero or more consumers wait on that event (WaitForSingleObject()) and perform an action in response. There is no need for two-way communication in my scenario, and the producer does not need to know if the event has any listeners, nor does it need to know if the event was successfully acted upon. On the other hand, I do not want any consumers to ever miss any events. In other words, the system needs to be perfectly reliable – but the producer does not need to know if that is the case or not. The scenario can be thought of as a “clock ticker” – i.e., the producer provides a semi-regular signal for zero or more consumers to count. And all consumers must have the correct count over any given period of time. No polling by consumers is allowed (performance reasons). The ticker is just a few milliseconds (20 or so, but not perfectly regular).
Raymen Chen (The Old New Thing) has a blog post pointing out the “fundamentally flawed” nature of the PulseEvent() function, but I do not see an alternative for my scenario from Chen or the posted comments.
Can anyone please suggest one?
Please keep in mind that the IPC signal must cross process boundries on the machine, not simply threads. And the solution needs to have high performance in that consumers must be able to act within 10ms of each event.
I think you're going to need something a little more complex to hit your reliability target.
My understanding of your problem is that you have one producer and an unknown number of consumers all of which are different processes. Each consumer can NEVER miss any events.
I'd like more clarification as to what missing an event means.
i) if a consumer started to run and got to just before it waited on your notification method and an event occurred should it process it even though it wasn't quite ready at the point that the notification was sent? (i.e. when is a consumer considered to be active? when it starts or when it processes its first event)
ii) likewise, if the consumer is processing an event and the code that waits on the next notification hasn't yet begun its wait (I'm assuming a Wait -> Process -> Loop to Wait code structure) then should it know that another event occurred whilst it was looping around?
I'd assume that i) is a "not really" as it's a race between process start up and being "ready" and ii) is "yes"; that is notifications are, effectively, queued per consumer once the consumer is present and each consumer gets to consume all events that are produced whilst it's active and doesn't get to skip any.
So, what you're after is the ability to send a stream of notifications to a set of consumers where a consumer is guaranteed to act on all notifications in that stream from the point where it acts on the first to the point where it shuts down. i.e. if the producer produces the following stream of notifications
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
and consumer a) starts up and processes 3, it should also process 4-0
if consumer b) starts up and processes 5 but is shut down after 9 then it should have processed 5,6,7,8,9
if consumer c) was running when the notifications began it should have processed 1-0
etc.
Simply pulsing an event wont work. If a consumer is not actively waiting on the event when the event is pulsed then it will miss the event so we will fail if events are produced faster than we can loop around to wait on the event again.
Using a semaphore also wont work as if one consumer runs faster than another consumer to such an extent that it can loop around to the semaphore call before the other completes processing and if there's another notification within that time then one consumer could process an event more than once and one could miss one. That is you may well release 3 threads (if the producer knows there are 3 consumers) but you cant ensure that each consumer is released just the once.
A ring buffer of events (tick counts) in shared memory with each consumer knowing the value of the event it last processed and with consumers alerted via a pulsed event should work at the expense of some of the consumers being out of sync with the ticks sometimes; that is if they miss one they will catch up next time they get pulsed. As long as the ring buffer is big enough so that all consumers can process the events before the producer loops in the buffer you should be OK.
With the example above, if consumer d misses the pulse for event 4 because it wasn't waiting on its event at the time and it then settles into a wait it will be woken when event 5 is produced and since it's last processed counted is 3 it will process 4 and 5 and then loop back to the event...
If this isn't good enough then I'd suggest something like PGM via sockets to give you a reliable multicast; the advantage of this would be that you could move your consumers off onto different machines...
The reason PulseEvent is "unreliable" is not so much because of anything wrong in the function itself, just that if your consumer doesn't happen to be waiting on the event at the exact moment that PulseEvent is called, it'll miss it.
In your scenario, I think the best solution is to manually keep the counter yourself. So the producer thread keeps a count of the current "clock tick" and when a consumer thread starts up, it reads the current value of that counter. Then, instead of using PulseEvent, increment the "clock ticks" counter and use SetEvent to wake all threads waiting on the tick. When the consumer thread wakes up, it checks it's "clock tick" value against the producer's "clock ticks" and it'll know how many ticks have elapsed. Just before it waits on the event again, it can check to see if another tick has occurred.
I'm not sure if I described the above very well, but hopefully that gives you an idea :)
There are two inherent problems with PulseEvent:
if it's used with auto-reset events, it releases one waiter only.
threads might never be awaken if they happen to be removed from the waiting queue due to APC at the moment of the PulseEvent.
An alternative is to broadcast a window message and have any listener have a top-level message -only window that listens to this particular message.
The main advantage of this approach is that you don't have to block your thread explicitly. The disadvantage of this approach is that your listeners have to be STA (can't have a message queue on an MTA thread).
The biggest problem with that approach would be that the processing of the event by the listener will be delayed with the amount of time it takes the queue to get to that message.
You can also make sure you use manual-reset events (so that all waiting threads are awaken) and do SetEvent/ResetEvent with some small delay (say 150ms) to give a bigger chance for threads temporarily woken by APC to pick up your event.
Of course, whether any of these alternative approaches will work for you depends on how often you need to fire your events and whether you need the listeners to process each event or just the last one they get.
If I understand your question correctly, it seems like you can simply use SetEvent. It will release one thread. Just make sure it is an auto-reset event.
If you need to allow multiple threads, you could use a named semaphore with CreateSemaphore. Each call to ReleaseSemaphore increases the count. If the count is 3, for example, and 3 threads wait on it, they will all run.
Events are more suitable for communications between the treads inside one process (unnamed events). As you have described, you have zero ore more clients that need to read something interested. I understand that the number of clients changes dynamically. In this case, the best chose will be a named pipe.
Named Pipe is King
If you need to just send data to multiple processes, it’s better to use named pipes, not the events. Unlike auto-reset events, you don't need own pipe for each of the client processes. Each named pipe has an associated server process and one or more associated client processes (and even zero). When there are many clients, many instances of the same named pipe are automatically created by the operating system for each of the clients. All instances of a named pipe share the same pipe name, but each instance has its own buffers and handles, and provides a separate conduit for client/server communication. The use of instances enables multiple pipe clients to use the same named pipe simultaneously. Any process can act as both a server for one pipe and a client for another pipe, and vice versa, making peer-to-peer communication possible.
If you will use a named pipe, there would be no need in the events at all in your scenario, and the data will have guaranteed delivery no matter what happens with the processes – each of the processes may get long delays (e.g. by a swap) but the data will be finally delivered ASAP without your special involvement.
On The Events
If you are still interested in the events -- the auto-reset event is king! ☺
The CreateEvent function has the bManualReset argument. If this parameter is TRUE, the function creates a manual-reset event object, which requires the use of the ResetEvent function to set the event state to non-signaled. This is not what you need. If this parameter is FALSE, the function creates an auto-reset event object, and system automatically resets the event state to non-signaled after a single waiting thread has been released.
These auto-reset events are very reliable and easy to use.
If you wait for an auto-reset event object with WaitForMultipleObjects or WaitForSingleObject, it reliably resets the event upon exit from these wait functions.
So create events the following way:
EventHandle := CreateEvent(nil, FALSE, FALSE, nil);
Wait for the event from one thread and do SetEvent from another thread. This is very simple and very reliable.
Don’t' ever call ResetEvent (since it automatically reset) or PulseEvent (since it is not reliable and deprecated). Even Microsoft has admitted that PulseEvent should not be used. See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms684914(v=vs.85).aspx
This function is unreliable and should not be used, because only those threads will be notified that are in the "wait" state at the moment PulseEvent is called. If they are in any other state, they will not be notified, and you may never know for sure what the thread state is. A thread waiting on a synchronization object can be momentarily removed from the wait state by a kernel-mode Asynchronous Procedure Call, and then returned to the wait state after the APC is complete. If the call to PulseEvent occurs during the time when the thread has been removed from the wait state, the thread will not be released because PulseEvent releases only those threads that are waiting at the moment it is called.
You can find out more about the kernel-mode Asynchronous Procedure Calls at the following links:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms681951(v=vs.85).aspx
http://www.drdobbs.com/inside-nts-asynchronous-procedure-call/184416590
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=75
We have never used PulseEvent in our applications. As about auto-reset events, we are using them since Windows NT 3.51 (although they appeared in the first 32-bit version of NT - 3.1) and they work very well.
Your Inter-Process Scenario
Unfortunately, your case is a little bit more complicated. You have multiple threads in multiple processes waiting for an event, and you have to make sure that all the threads did in fact receive the notification. There is no other reliable way other than to create own event for each consumer. So, you will need to have as many events as are the consumers. Besides that, you will need to keep a list of registered consumers, where each consumer has an associated event name. So, to notify all the consumers, you will have to do SetEvent in a loop for all the consumer events. This is a very fast, reliable and cheap way. Since you are using cross-process communication, the consumers will have to register and de-register its events via other means of inter-process communication, like SendMessage. For example, when a consumer process registers itself at your main notifier process, it sends SendMessage to your process to request a unique event name. You just increment the counter and return something like Event1, Event2, etc, and creating events with that name, so the consumers will open existing events. When the consumer de-registers – it closes the event handle that it opened before, and sends another SendMessage, to let you know that you should CloseHandle too on your side to finally release this event object. If the consumer process crashes, you will end up with a dummy event, since you will not know that you should do CloseHandle, but this should not be a problem - the events are very fast and very cheap, and there is virtually no limit on the kernel objects - the per-process limit on kernel handles is 2^24. If you are still concerned, you may to the opposite – the clients create the events but you open them. If they won’t open – then the client has crashed and you just remove it from the list.