I have a very weird situation: I have a system where a client app (Client) makes an HTTP GET call to my Rails server, and that controller does some handling and then needs to make a separate call to the Client via a different pathway (i.e. it actually goes via Rabbit to a proxy and the proxy calls the Client). I can't change the pathway for that different call and I can't change the Client at all (it's a 3rd party system).
However: the issue is: the call via the different pathway fails UNLESS the HTTP GET from the client is completed.
So I'm trying to figure out: is there a way to have Rails finish the HTTP GET response and then make this additional call?
I've tried:
1) after_filter: this doesn't work because the after filter is apparently still within the Request/Response cycle so the TCP/HTTP response back to the Client hasn't completed.
2) enqueuing a worker: this works, but it is not ideal because if the workers are backed up, this call back to the client may not happen right away and it really does need to happen right after the Client calls the Rails app
3) starting a separate thread: this may work, but it makes me nervous: adding threading explicitly in Rails could be fraught with peril.
I welcome any ideas/suggestions.
Again, in short, the goal is: process the HTTP GET call to the Rails app and return a 200 OK back to the Client, completely finishing the HTTP request/response cycle and then call some extra code
I can provide any further details if that would help. I've found both #1 and #2 as recommended options but neither of them are quite what I need.
Ideally, there would be some "after_response" callback in Rails that allows some code to run but after the full request/response cycle is done.
Possibly use an around filter? Around filters allow us to define methods that wrap around every action that rails calls. So if I had an around filter for the above controller, I could control the execution of every action, execute code before calling the action, and after calling it, and also completely skip calling the action under certain circumstances if I wanted to.
So what I ended up doing was using a gem that I had long ago helped with: Spawnling
It turns out that this works well, although it required a tweak to get it working with Rails 3.2. It allows me to spawn a thread to do the extra, out-of-band callback to the Client, but let the normal, controller process complete. And I don't have to worry about thread management, or AR connection management. Spawnling handles that.
It's still not ideal, but pretty close. And it's slightly better than enqueuing a Resque/Sidekiq worker as there's no risk of worker backlog causing an unexpected delay.
I still wish there was an "after_response_sent" callback or something, but I guess this is too unusual a request.
Related
Is it possible (I think it is a usual thing) to cancel a request (also a method which already started on the server after this request)?
Say, I request from a rails app a video search on youtube or vimeo (which is implemented on the server and makes further requests directly to vimeo or youtube), but then I decide to cancel this search, so I can start a new one, without waisting the resources for already useless search results. So all requests are done via AJAX.
I think I should:
either define a global variable (e.g. cancel_req = 4939498348953 and each time when cancell set it to some specific ID known to the method I desire to cancel, and in the mean time just set to cancel = nil. So at some points in the code just check this variable (but what if the 3rd party API call is blocking with very long duration time, because it returns very much data?)
or introduce redis subscribing (I think its a bit over-engineered for this task)
But both methods sounds to me like just a workarounds. Are there any better ways to reach the cancel of those long-running methods like requesting 3rd parties APIs in own solution?
Update:
is it somehow possible in rails with callbacks? maybe with yields?
Update2:
The workflow is following:
client -> webserver -> rails-app-server (controller/helper) --->
|
foreignAPI // <-- break execution somewhere here (but of course still handle all other client requests, so - not exiting the application)
|
client <- webserver <- rails-app-server (controller/helper) <--
It seems like your problem is simply blocking calls. Consider delayed_job to run asynchronous tasks--in your case, these long API calls. You can set the configuration Delayed::Worker.max_run_time = 10.seconds (or whatever time) as the limit you're willing to wait, and there are callbacks for pretty much every event you can think of.
I discovered today Servlet 3.0 asynchronous facility. I have read about it and think I understood the concept.
I was wondering: would that make any difference on "standard" controller's actions, or should it be saved for the use of web services, or extensive computational processes ?
In other words, is it a bad idea to use it on all one's controller's actions, without considering the computational time of the actions method beforehand?
If it is, could you explained to me why ?
Thank you in advance.
No, this would be a bad idea.
On a controller action, you get a request and you want to serve a response as soon as possible. You can use the asynchronous only for thing that can be delayed.
If a user is requesting a page on your website, you can't respond with empty page, then do a push back to update his page. I would use this feature only for AJAX requests and even not for all of them. You have to decide what makes sense to run be run asynchronously and what not.
You should read the Grails documentation for Asynchronous Request Handling
In general for controller actions that execute quickly there is little benefit in handling requests asynchronously. However, for long running controller actions it is extremely beneficial.
The reason being that with an asynchronous / non-blocking response, the one thread == one request == one response relationship is broken. The container can keep a client response open and active, and at the same time return the thread back to the container to deal with another request, improving scalability.
Hopefully this should be clear enough, but please ask if something is not clear.
I noticed that in a standard grails environment, a request is always executed to the end, even when the client connection is lost and the result can't be delivered anymore.
Is there a way to configure the environment in such a way that execution of a request is canceled as soon as the client connection is lost?
Update: Thanx fo the answers. Yes - most of the problems I am trying to avoid can be avoided by better coding:
caching can make nearly every page fast
a token can help to avoid submitting something twice
but there are some requests which still could consume some time. Let's take a map service as example. Calculating a route will take some time. One solution to avoid resubmitting the request could be a "calculationInProgress" flag together with a message to the user. But then it is still possible to create a lot of sessions and thus a lot of requests in order to do a DOS attack...
I am still curious: is there no way to configure the server to cancel the request? I used to develop on a system where the server behaved this way and it was great :-)
Probably there is no such way. And I'm sure grails (and your webcontainer) is designed to
accept incoming request
process it on server side
send response
if something happened during phase 2, i'll know about it only on send response phase. Actually you can send data to HttpSerlvetRespone by yourself, handle IOException, etc - but it will be too much low-level way, I think. And it will not help you with canceling your DB operations, while you're preparing data to send.
Btw, it's common pattern to use an web frontend, like nginx, that accepts incomming request and and handle all this problems with cancelled requests, slow requests (i guess it's the real problem?), etc.
According to your comment it is reload and multiple clicks that you are trying to avoid. The proper technique should be to use Grails support for handling multiple form submissions:
http://grails.org/doc/2.0.x/guide/theWebLayer.html#formtokens
I am building an application which will send status requests to users (via email & sms) on a regular basis. I want to execute the service each hour which will:
Query the database for all requests that need to be sent (based on some logic)
Send the requests through Amazon's Simple Email Service (this is already working)
Write a record of the status request notification back to the data store
I am considering wrapping up this series of operations into a single controller with an end point that can be called remotely to kick off the process within the rails app.
Longer term, I will break this process out into an app that can be run independently of my rails app, but for now I'm just trying to keep it simple.
My first inclination is to build the following:
Controller with the following elements:
A method which will orchestrate the steps outlined above (and can be called externally)
A call to the status_request model which will bring back a collection of request needing to be sent
A loop to iterate through the pending requests, which will:
Make a call to my AWS Simple Email Service module to actually send the email, and
Make a call to the status_request model to log the request back to the database
Model:
A method on my status_request model which will bring back a collection of requests that need to be sent
A method in my status_request model which will log that a notification was sent
Since this will behave as a service that gets called periodically from an outside scheduler I don't think I'll need a view for this operation. (Will, of course, need views to show users and admins what requests have been sent, but that's later...).
As someone new to Rails, I'm asking for review of this approach and any suggestions you may have.
Thanks!
Instead of a controller which Jeff pointed out exposes a security risk, you may just want to expose a rake task and use cron to invoke it on an hourly basis.
If you are still interested in building a controller, look at devise gem and its single access token, token_authenticatable, for securing the methods you are exposing.
You may also want to look at delayed_job or resque to offload the call to status_request and the loop to AWS simple service to a background worker process.
You may want a seperate controller and view for the log file so you can review progress on demand.
And if you want to get real fancy use Amazon SNS to send you alerts when the service reaches some unacceptable level of failures, backlog, etc.
Since you are trying to invoke this from an outside process, your approach should work. You could also have a worker process that processes task when they are there.
You will need routes to expose your service, and you may want to also make security decisions. How will the service that invokes your application authenticate so all others can't hit it at will?
Another consideration should be how many emails are you sending. If there are enough, we may want to look into the fact that writing this sort of loop is going to be extremely top heavy; and may affect users on the current system if it's a web application.
In the end, there are many ways to do this. I would focus on the performance/usage you expect as well as security. There's never one perfect way to solve a problem like this, and your way should just be aware of the variables it will need to be operating within.
Resque and Redis might be helpful to you in scheduling and performing operatio n .They are simple and superfast, [here](http://railscasts.com/episodes/271-resque] is a simple tut on same.
I will build an Asp.net MVC 3 web page.
View: The view (web page) invoke about five Ajax(jQuery) calls against the methods, which return JsonResult, in a controller and render the results on the web page.
Control: The controller methods read a SQL Server 2008 database using EF4. Two of the SQL statements may take half a minute to execute depending on the server load.
I wish the users can at least see the contents returned from the quick controller/database calls as soon as possible. The page will not have a lot of users (maybe up to 15). Will the long run controller method calls block others if they are not asynchronous? Or is it irrelevant as long as the thread pool is big enough to handle the peak requests of the users?
From the user's view, loading the initial web page is synchronous, i.e. he has to wait until the server delivers the page. The Ajax requests however look asynchronous to him because he can already see part of the page.
From the server's view, everything is synchronous. There is an HTTP request that needs to be processed and the answer is either HTML, JSON or whatever. The client will wait until it receives the answer. And several requests can be processed in parallel.
So unless you implement some special locking (either on the web server or in the database) that blocks some of the requests, nothing will be blocked.
The proposed approach seems just fine to me.
Update:
There's one thing I forgot: ASP.NET contains a locking mechanism to synchronize access to the session data that can get into the way if you have several concurrent requests from the same user. Have a look at the SessionState attribute for a way to work around that problem.
Update 2:
And for an asynchronous behavior from the user's point of view, there's no need to use the AsyncController class. They where built for something else, which is not relevant in your case since only have 15 users.
Will the long run controller method calls block others if they are not asynchronous?
The first important thing to note is that all those controller actions should not have write access to the Session. If they write to the session whether they are sync or async they will always execute sequentially and never in parallel. That's due to the fact that ASP.NET Session is not thread safe and if multiple requests from the same session arrive they will be queued. If you are only reading from the Session it is OK.
Now, the slow controller actions will not block the fast controller actions. No matter whether they are synchronous or not. For long controller actions it could make sense to make them asynchronous only if you are using the asynchronous ADO.NET methods to access the database and thus benefit from the I/O Completion Ports. They allow you to not consume any threads during I/O operations such as database access. If you use standard blocking calls to the database you get no benefit from async actions.
I would recommend you the following article for getting deeper understanding of when asynchronous actions could be beneficial.