I have a default standalone.xml configuration where there is a maximum of 20 connections to be active at the same time in the pool of connections to the database. With good reasons, I guess. We run an Oracle database.
There's a reasonable amount of database traffic as there is third party API traffic, e.g. SOAP and HTTP calls in the enterprise application I'm developing.
We often do something like the following:
#PersistenceContext(unitName = "some-pu")
private EntityManager em;
public void someBusinessMethod() {
someEntity = em.findSomeEntity();
soap.callEndPoint(someEntity.getSomeProperty()); // may take up to 1 minute
em.update(someEntity);
cdiEvent.fire(finishedBusinessEvent);
}
However, in this case the database connection is acquired when the entity is fetched and is released after the update (actually when the entire transaction is done). About transactions, everything is container managed, no additional annotations. I know that you shouldn't "hold" the database connection longer than necessary, and this is exactly what I'm trying to solve. For one I wouldn't know how to programmatically release the connection nor do I think it would be a good idea, because you still want to be able to roll back for the entire transaction.
So? How to attack this problem? There's a number of options I tried:
Option 1, using ManagedExecutorService:
#Resource
private ManagedExecutorService mes;
public void someBusinessMethod() {
someEntity = em.findSomeEntity();
this.mes.submit(() -> {
soap.callEndPoint(someEntity.getSomeProperty()); // may take up to 1 minute
em.update(someEntity);
cdiEvent.fire(finishedBusinessEvent);
});
}
Option 2, using #Asynchronous:
#Inject
private AsyncBean asyncBean;
public void someBusinessMethod() {
someEntity = em.findSomeEntity();
this.asyncBean.process(someEntity);
}
public class AsyncBean {
#Asynchronous
public void process() {
soap.callEndPoint(someEntity.getSomeProperty()); // may take up to 1 minute
em.update(someEntity);
cdiEvent.fire(finishedBusinessEvent);
}
}
This in fact solved the database connection pooling issue, e.g. the connection is released as soon as the soap.callEndPoint happened. But it did not feel really stable (can't pinpoint the problems here). And of course the transaction is finished once you enter the a-sync processing, so whenever something went wrong during the soap call there was nothing roll backed.
wrapping up...
I'm about to move the long running IO tasks (soap and http calls) to a separate part of the application offloaded via queue's and feeding the result back in the application via queue's once again. In this case everything is done via transactions and no connections are held up. But this is a lot of overhead, thus before doing so I'd like to hear your opinion / best practices how to solve this problem!
Your queue solution is viable, but perhaps not necessary if you only perform read operations before your calls, you could split the transaction into 2 transactions (as you would also do with the queue) by using a DAO pattern.
Example:
#Stateless
private DaoBean dao;
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.NEVER)
public void someBusinessMethod() {
Entity e = dao.getEntity(); // creates and discards TX
e = soap.callEndPoint(e.getSomeProperty());
dao.update(e); // creates TX 2 and commits
}
This solutions has a few caveats.
The business method above can not be called while a transaction is already active because it would negate the purpose of the DAO (one TX suspended with NOT_SUPPORTED).
You will have to handle or ignore the possible changes that could have occurred on the entity during the soap call (#Version ...).
The entity will be detached in the business method, so you will have to eager load everything you need in the soap call.
I can't tell you if this would work for you as it depends on what is done before the business call. While still complex, it would be easier than a queue.
You were kind of heading down the right track with Option 2, it just needs a little more decomposition to get the transaction management happening in a way that keeps them very short.
Since you have a potentially long running web service call you're definitely going to need to perform your database updates in two separate transactions:
short find operation
long web service call
short update operation
This can be accomplished by introducing a third EJB as follows:
Entry point
#Stateless
public class MyService {
#Inject
private AsyncService asyncService;
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager em;
/*
* Short lived method call returns promptly
* (unless you need a fancy multi join query)
* It will execute in a short REQUIRED transaction by default
*/
public void someBusinessMethod(long entityId) {
SomeEntity someEntity = em.find(SomeEntity.class, entityId);
asyncService.process(someEntity);
}
}
Process web service call
#Stateless
public class AsyncService {
#Inject
private BusinessCompletionService businessCompletionService;
#Inject
private SomeSoapService soap;
/*
* Long lived method call with no transaction.
*
* Asynchronous methods are effectively run as REQUIRES_NEW
* unless it is disabled.
* This should avoid transaction timeout problems.
*/
#Asynchronous
#TransactionAttribute(TransactionAttributeType.NOT_SUPPORTED)
public void process(SomeEntity someEntity) {
soap.callEndPoint(someEntity.getSomeProperty()); // may take up to 1 minute
businessCompletionService.handleBusinessProcessCompletion(someEntity);
}
}
Finish up
#Stateless
public class BusinessCompletionService {
#PersistenceContext
private EntityManager em;
#Inject
#Any
private Event<BusinessFinished> businessFinishedEvent;
/*
* Short lived method call returns promptly.
* It defaults to REQUIRED, but will in effect get a new transaction
* for this scenario.
*/
public void handleBusinessProcessCompletion(SomeEntity someEntity) {
someEntity.setSomething(SOMETHING);
someEntity = em.merge(someEntity);
// you may have to deal with optimistic locking exceptions...
businessFinishedEvent.fire(new BusinessFinished(someEntity));
}
}
I suspect that you may still need some connection pool tuning to cope effectively with your peak load. Monitoring should clear that up.
Related
We have a requirement to create a kind of user session. Our front end is react and backend is .net core 6 api and db is postgres.
When 1 user clicks on a delete button , he should not be allowed to delete that item when another user is already using that item and performing some actions.
Can you guys suggest me an approach or any kind of service that is available to achieve this. Please help
I would say dont make it too complicated. A simple approach could be to add the properties 'BeingEditedByUserId' and 'ExclusiveEditLockEnd' (datetime) to the entity and check these when performing any action on this entity. When an action is performed on the entity, the id is assigned and a timeslot (for example 10 minutes) would be assigned for this user. If any other user would try to perform an action, you block them. If the timeslot is expired anyone can edit again.
I have had to do something similar with Java (also backed by a postgres db)
There are some pitfalls to avoid with a custom lock implementation, like forgetting to unlock when finished, given that there is not guarantee that a client makes a 'goodbye, unlock the table' call when they finish editing a page, they could simply close the browser tab, or have a power outage... Here is what i decided to do:
Decide if the lock should be implemented in the API or DB?
Is this a distributed/scalable application? Does it run as just a single instance or multiple? If multiple, then you can not (as easily) implement an API lock (you could use something like a shared cache, but that might be more trouble than it is worth)
Is there a record in the DB that could be used as a lock, guaranteed to exist for each editable item in the DB? I would assume so, but if the app is backed by multiple DBs maybe not.
API locking is fairly easy, you just need to handle thread safety as most (if not all) REST/SOAP... implementations are heavily multithreaded.
If you implement at the DB consider looking into a 'Row Level Lock' which allows you to request a lock on a specific row in the DB, which you could use as a write lock.
If you want to implement in the API, consider something like this:
class LockManager
{
private static readonly object writeLock = new();
// the `object` is whatever you want to use as the ID of the resource being locked, probably a UUID/GUID but could be a String too
// the `holder` is an ID of the person/system that owns the lock
Dictionary<object, _lock> locks = new Dictionary<object, _lock>();
_lock acquireLock(object id, String holder)
{
_lock lok = new _lock();
lok.id = id;
lok.holder = holder;
lock (writeLock)
{
if (locks.ContainsKey(id))
{
if (locks[id].release > DateTime.Now)
{
locks.Remove(id);
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Resource is already locked, lock held by: " + locks[id].holder);
}
}
lok.allocated = DateTime.Now;
lok.release = lok.allocated.AddMinutes(5);
}
return lok;
}
void releaseLock(object id)
{
lock (writeLock)
{
locks.Remove(id);
}
}
// called by .js code to renew the lock via ajax call if the user is determined to be active
void extendLock(object id)
{
if (locks.ContainsKey(id))
{
lock (writeLock)
{
locks[id].release = DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(5);
}
}
}
}
class _lock
{
public object id;
public String holder;
public DateTime allocated;
public DateTime release;
}
}
This is what i did because it does not depend on the DB or client. And was easy to implement. Also, it does not require configuring any lock timeouts or cleanup tasks to release locked items with expired locks on them, as that is taken care of in the locking step.
I have an OfyService class of this type
/**
* Custom Objectify Service that this application should use.
*/
public class OfyService {
/**
* This static block ensure the entity registration.
*/
static {
factory().register(MerchantProfile.class);
factory().register(Product.class);
}
/**
* Use this static method for getting the Objectify service object in order to make sure the
* above static block is executed before using Objectify.
* #return Objectify service object.
*/
public static Objectify ofy() {
return ObjectifyService.ofy();
}
/**
* Use this static method for getting the Objectify service factory.
* #return ObjectifyFactory.
*/
public static ObjectifyFactory factory() {
return ObjectifyService.factory();
}
}
I use factory().allocateId() method to allocate Key (to get Long id) before saving an entity. I have a problem where I need to transfer money from one account to the other and add an entry to Transaction table. So, I use ofy().transact(new Work<~>) in the following way
WrappedBoolean result = ofy().transact(new Work<WrappedBoolean>() {
#Override
public WrappedBoolean run() {
}
}
I allocate Id for Transaction before entering the transact part and then I subtract money from one account add it to other and then save both the accounts and Transaction entity.
My concern is as follows
What happens when there are two concurrent requests and app engine Instance provide them separate request handlers and same ID is allocated to both of them, depending upon the database State or it is not possible that the same id gets allocated twice.
What is the flow of control of Work as compared to the conventional synchronization block that we use in Java for making critical sections?
PS: To perform the same in other frameworks like Jersey (with JPA) I would have used a Synchronization block and would have done the Transaction in that block. And since at a time only one thread can access that block and id is also assigned once data is saved to the table there would have bee no issues.
Thread safety is not relevant to data consistency with either the datastore or with JPA/RDBMSes. If you are relying on synchronization, you are doing something wrong.
If you create a complete unit of work that performs your task and execute it in a transaction, the datastore will ensure that it is either completely applied or not applied at all. It will also guarantee that all transactions behave as if they were operated in serial. This might result in any particular execution aborting and retrying, but you don't see this as a user.
In short: Just put this in a transaction and do not worry about threading.
I am creating a server which consumes commands from numerous sources such as JMS, SNMP, HTTP etc. These are all asynchronous and are working fine. The server maintains a single connection to a single item of legacy hardware which has a request/reply architecture with a custom TCP protocol.
Ideally I would like a single command like this blocking type method
public Response issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command)
or this asynchronous type method
public Future<Response> issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command)
I am relatively new to Netty and asynchronous programming, basically learning it as I go along. My current thought is that my LegacyHardwareClient class will have public synchronized issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command), will make a write to the client channel to the legacy hardware, then take() from a SynchronousQueue<Response> which will block. The ChannelInboundHandler in the pipeline will offer() a Response to the SynchronousQueue>Response> which will allow the take() to unblock and receive the data.
Is this too convoluted? Are there any examples around of synchronous Netty client implementations that I can look at? Are there any best practices for Netty?
I could obviously use just standard Java sockets however the power of Netty for parsing custom protocols along with the ease of maintaniability is far too great to give up.
UPDATE:
Just regarding the implementation, I used an ArrayBlockingQueue<>() and I used put() and remove() rather than offer() and remove(). Because I wanted to ensure that subsequent requests to the legacy hardware were only sent when any active requests had been replied to as the legacy hardware behaviour is not known with certainty otherwise.
The reason offer() and remove() did not work for me was that the offer() command would not pass anything if there was not an actively blocking take() request no the other side. The converse is true that remove() would not return anything unless there was a blocking put() call inserting data.
I couldn't use a put()/remove() since the remove() statement would never be reached since there was no request written to the channel to trigger the event from where the remove() would be called. I couldn't use offer()/take() since the offer() statement would return false since the take() call hadn't been executed yet.
Using the ArrayBlockingQueue<>() with a capacity of 1, it ensured that only one command could be executed at once. Any other commands would block until there was sufficient room to insert, with a capacity of 1 this meant it had to be empty. The emptying of the queue was done once a response had been received from the legacy hardware. This ensured a nice synchronous behaviour toward the legacy hardware but provided an asynchronous API to the users of the legacy hardware, for which there are many.
Instead of designing your application on a blocking manner using SynchronousQueue<Response>, design it in a nonblocking manner using SynchronousQueue<Promise<Response>>.
Your public Future<Response> issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command) should then use offer() to add a DefaultPromise<>() to the Queue, and then the netty pipeline can use remove() to get the response for that request, notice I used remove() instead of take(), since only under exceptional circumstances, there is none element present.
A quick implementation of this might be:
public class MyLastHandler extends SimpleInboundHandler<Response> {
private final SynchronousQueue<Promise<Response>> queue;
public MyLastHandler (SynchronousQueue<Promise<Response>> queue) {
super();
this.queue = queue;
}
// The following is called messageReceived(ChannelHandlerContext, Response) in 5.0.
#Override
public void channelRead0(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Response msg) {
this.queue.remove().setSuccss(msg); // Or setFailure(Throwable)
}
}
The above handler should be placed last in the chain.
The implementation of public Future<Response> issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command) can look:
Channel channel = ....;
SynchronousQueue<Promise<Response>> queue = ....;
public Future<Response> issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command) {
return issueCommandToLegacyHardware(command, channel.eventLoop().newPromise());
}
public Future<Response> issueCommandToLegacyHardware(Command command, Promise<Response> promise) {
queue.offer(promise);
channel.write(command);
return promise;
}
Using the approach with the overload on issueCommandToLegacyHardware is also the design pattern used for Channel.write, this makes it really flexable.
This design pattern can be used as follows in client code:
issueCommandToLegacyHardware(
Command.TAKE_OVER_THE_WORLD_WITH_FIRE,
channel.eventLoop().newPromise()
).addListener(
(Future<Response> f) -> {
System.out.println("We have taken over the world: " + f.get());
}
);
The advantage of this design pattern is that no unneeded blocking is used anywhere, just plain async logic.
Appendix I: Javadoc:
Promise Future DefaultPromise
I want to store data in database in every minute . For the same what should I use Service, AsyncTask or anything else. I go through various link which made me more confused .
I read the developer guide and came to know about getWritableDatabase
Database upgrade may take a long time, you should not call this method from the application main thread,
Then first I think I will use AsyncTask then about this
AsyncTasks should ideally be used for short operations (a few seconds at the most.)
After that I think I can use Service then about Service
A Service is not a thread. It is not a means itself to do work off of the main thread (to avoid Application Not Responding errors).
Here I am not able to understand what should I use to store data in database periodically. Please help me here as struck badly.
Thanks in advance
you cant do a lot work on the UI thread, so making database operations you could choose different approaches, few of them that I prefer to use are listed below;
Create a thread pool and execute each database operation via a thread, this reduces load on UI thread, also it never initializes lot of threads.
You can use services for updating the database operations. since services running on UI thread you cant write your operations in Services, so that you have to create a separate thread inside service method. or you can use Intent service directly since it is not working on UI Thread.
here is developer documentation on thread pool in android
and this is the documentation for IntentService
UPDATE
This will send an intent to your service every minute without using any processor time in your activity in between
Intent myIntent = new Intent(context, MyServiceReceiver.class);
PendingIntent pendingIntent = PendingIntent.getBroadcast(context, 0, myIntent, 0);
AlarmManager alarmManager = (AlarmManager)context.getSystemService(Context.ALARM_SERVICE);
Calendar calendar = Calendar.getInstance();
calendar.setTimeInMillis(System.currentTimeMillis());
calendar.add(Calendar.SECOND, 60); // first time
long frequency= 60 * 1000; // in ms
alarmManager.setRepeating(AlarmManager.RTC_WAKEUP, calendar.getTimeInMillis(), frequency, pendingIntent);
Before that check if you really need a service to be started in each minute. or if you can have one service which checks for the data changes in each minute, starting new service would consume maybe more resources than checking itself.
UPDATE 2
private ping() {
// periodic action here.
scheduleNext();
}
private scheduleNext() {
mHandler.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
public void run() { ping(); }
}, 60000);
}
int onStartCommand(Intent intent, int x, int y) {
mHandler = new android.os.Handler();
ping();
return STICKY;
}
this is a simple example like that you can do
I've read about entities lifecycle, and the locking strategies, and I watched some videos about this but I'm still not sure I understand.I understand there is also a locking mechanism in the underlying RDBMS (I'm using mysql).
I would like to know at what point a transaction is committed / entity is detached and how does it affect other transactions from a locking point of view. At what point does an user have to wait till a transaction finishes ? I've made two different scenarios below. For the sake of understanding I'm asserting the table in the scenarios contains a lot of rows and the for loops takes 10 minute to complete.
Scenario 1:
#Stateless
public class AService implements AServiceInterface {
#PersistenceContext(unitName = "my-pu")
private EntityManager em;
#Override
public List<Aclass> getAll() {
Query query = em.createQuery(SELECT_ALL_ROWS);
return query.getResultList();
}
public void update(Aclass a) {
em.merge(a);
}
}
and a calling class:
public aRadomClass{
#EJB
AServiceInterface service;
public void method(){
List<Aclass> listAclass = service.getAll();
for(Aclass a : listAclass){
a.setProperty(methodThatTakesTime());
service.update(a);
}
}
}
Without specifying a locking strategy : If another user wants to makes an update to one row in the table and the for loop already began but is not finished. Does he have to wait till the for loop is completed ?
Scenario 2:
#Stateless
public class AService implements AServiceInterface {
#PersistenceContext(unitName = "my-pu")
private EntityManager em;
#Override
public List<Aclass> getAllAndUpdate() {
Query query = em.createQuery(SELECT_ALL_ROWS);
List<Aclass> listAclass = query.getResultList();
for(Aclass a : listAclass ){
a.setProperty(methodThatTakesTime());
em.merge(a);
}
}
}
Same question.
It is important what kind of class is your aRandomClass. If it is also an EJB, you should take a look in the transaction propagation. If it is a servlet, then the transaction is closed automatically right after your EJB method exits (no matter which one). That is done using dynamic proxies. So in scenario 1 the EJB container will open and close multiple transactions: one for service.getAll() and one for each service.update(a) call. In scenario 2, if method getAllAndUpdate() is called only once, a single transaction will be opened and it will be closed on method exit.