I have a turbogears app that makes extensive use of app_globals.
It uses common code that does "from tg import app_globals" and then uses the object.
Until now, this common code was only called in the context of an incoming request.
however, I now want to start worker threads in the app to do processing, and these worker threads needs to call the common code.
How do I register the same "tg.app_globals" on the worker thread?
I am trying to avoid rewriting all my common code to pass around an "app_globals" object.
TurboGears configuration is always available in any thread after it got processed, so unless you need to access the app_globlas before the configuration process took place you can do that through tg.config['tg.app_globals']
Related
As we know, dart is a single-threaded language. So according to the document, we can use Futrure/Stream to implement a async opetation. It sends the time-consuming operation to the Event Queue.
What confused me is where the Event Queue working on. It is working on the dart threat? if yes, it will block the app.
Another question is Event Queue a FIFO queue. If i have two opertion, one is a 1mins needed networking request, the other is a click event. The two operation will send to the Event Queue.
So if the click event will blocked by the networking request? Because the queue is a FIFO queue?
So where is the event queue working on?
Thank you very much!
One thing to note is that asynchronous and multithreading are two different things. Dart uses Futures and async/await to achieve asynchronicity, but Dart is still inherently a single-threaded language.
The way it works is when a Future is created (either manually or via calling an async method), that process is added to an event queue, as you read. Then, in the middle of all the synchronous execution, whenever there is a lull, the event queue can take priority. It can then go through the processes and figure out if any of the Futures have been completed. If so, the result is passed along to any other asynchronous processes that are waiting on that resource, if any.
This also means that, yes, if your program hangs in the middle of an asynchronous operation (with the easy example of an endless loop via while (true) {}), it will freeze the entire program, including the synchronous code and other asynchronous processes still waiting to resolve (even if the conditions allowing them to resolve have already occurred).
However, in your case, this won't be an issue. If you fire an asynchronous process in the form of a network request followed by another in the form of a "click event" (not sure what you're referring to, but I'll assume it's asynchronous as well), they will both be added to the event queue in that order. But if the click event resolves before the network request, the event queue will merely recognize that the network request Future has not yet resolved and will move on to the click event that has.
As a side note, it's worth noting that Dart does have a multi-threading capability, albeit in a fairly roundabout way. Dart has something called an Isolate, which isn't a thread but a completely separate child program. This means that the Isolate cannot access any of the same data in memory as the root program itself. However, data can be passed between the two using SendPorts and ReceivePorts. This makes using Isolates slightly more complicated than threads, but it also means that, if no memory is shared, it virtually eliminates race conditions based on which thread accesses the memory first.
An app I am working on requires creating a container object on a server and inserting items into that container. I don't want to create the container object until the first item needs to be inserted. However, creating the container object requires some initialization that may take a little time. While that container is still initializing the user can still to send insertion requests that aren't getting handled because the container isn't ready yet. I have two main questions:
Should this be dealt with on the client or server side?
What is the best practice for dealing with kind of this issue?
Essentially, I need to ensure my initial createContainer data task in complete before any insertItem requests are sent.
Addition Information
An insertItem request is sent by clicking on a corresponding tableViewCell. The first tableViewCell a user clicks on sends a createContainer request that creates a container holding the first item.
For a container holding n items, the request should be sent in the following order:
createContainer(Container(with: item1)
insertItem(item2)
...
insertItem(itemn)
After the first request completes, the remaining n – 1 requests may complete in any order.
My Thoughts
It sounds like I want the createContainer request to be handled synchronously while the insertItem request should be handled asynchronously. I'm not sure if that is the best approach or even how to perform that appropriately, so any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
You can use a NSOperationQueue and multiple NSOperations to implement your desired behavior. A NSOperation instance can be dependent on the completion of another NSOperation instance:
dependencies
An array of the operation objects that must finish
executing before the current object can begin executing.
For your example this would mean that the insertItem-Operations are dependent on the createContainer operation.
When you add all those operations to a NSOperationQueue your createContainer operation will run first. When it has finished, the other operations will start running as their dependencies are now satisfied. You can also control how many operations you want to run concurrently using maxConcurrentOperationCount on NSOperationQueue.
As you will be using asynchronous API in your NSOperations you will need to implement a ConcurrentOperation and handle the state changes yourself. The API Reference is explaining this in pretty good detail.
Check out the API Reference for NSOperation for further information.
There is also a nice NSHipster article on NSOperations.
Adding to the NSOperationQueue answer, it's sometimes difficult to manually manage all the state changes that an NSOperation requires to handle something asynchronous like a network call.
To simplify that, you can use a Swift Library called Overdrive. It's an amazing library in which you simply subclass a Task class and write your network code in the run() function. And when you're done, you simply call self.finish to finish the task. Here's an example: Just create a simple download task:
Then, just add it to the queue.
You can also add dependencies between tasks, which basically solves your use case.
Hope this helps.
I am trying to understand multi-threading on iOS in more detail. I went through some of the class references like NSThread, NSRunLoop, NSTask..
First of all as indicated on the following link:
use of runloop
Runloop runs within a Thread.
So why do we need to define our own Runloop in our app? In the case of NSThread it is useful because some of time-consuming processes can run in a separate thread so that the app will still be responsive on the main thread.
Interacting with the thread's run loop may be useful if you have a thread whose work you want to continue periodically. That is, a run loop would do some work, and then when it is finished with that work, it would put the thread to rest for some time, then resume work at a later time -- effectively preventing the thread from exiting. You won't need to interact with them or configure/create them yourself regularly (only a small percentage of apps would qualify, if you are using high level abstractions such as Foundation because Foundation would set them up on your behalf in most scenarios).
If your secondary thread just does a specified task and does not need to wait for some external event (e.g. a download to finish), you would (typically) not need to interact with the run loop.
You might consider looking at using NSOperationQueues, NSOperations and NSBlockOperations instead as these will manage themselves, will allow for cancellation of tasks and can be scheduled on main and background threads.
I'm working on an application, but at the moment I'm stuck on multithreading with rails.
I have the following situation: when some action occurs (it could be after a user clicks a button or when a scheduled task fires off), I'm starting a separate thread which parses some websites until the moment when I have to receive the SMS-code to continue parsing. At this moment I make Thread.stop.
The SMS-code comes as a POST request to some of my controllers. So I want to pass it to my stopped thread and continue its job.
But how can I access that thread?
Where is the best place to keep a link to that thread?
So how can I handle multithreading? There may be a situation when there'll be a lot of threads and a lot of SMS requests, and I need to somehow correlate them.
For all real purposes you can't, but you can have that other thread 'report' its status.
You can use redis-objects to create either a lock object using redis as its flag, create some type of counter, or just true, false value store. You can then query redis to see the corresponding state of the other thread, and exit if needed.
https://github.com/nateware/redis-objects
The cool part about this is it not only works between threads, but between applications.
I was going over the RunLoop iOS documentation and it discusses the idea illustrated here:
(source: apple.com)
in the RunLoopSource it provides the following interface for client threads (ie the Main thread in the above illustration) to fill the audio buffer with commands and data, and to subsequently fire all commands available in the said buffer:
// Client interface for registering commands to process
- (void)addCommand:(NSInteger)command withData:(id)data
- (void)fireAllCommandsOnRunLoop:(CFRunLoopRef)runloop
In the add command method we're simply adding commands to an NSMutableArray data structure.
My question is how can we encapsulate those commands in variables such that they are methods.. the data variable in the addCommand method is of type id.. can we put a block in there for example? Are there any best practices here/sample code etc? thanks.
This technique pre-dates blocks. The beauty about using blocks with concurrency is that you can throw as much work as you want at the system, and given its total device scope can schedule that work on multiple cores and threads as it sees fit. You can also use a concurrent NSOperation and have it implement a fifo to accept work and process it, but in this case there will only be the secondary thread, and it will again be scheduled run time as the system sees fit to giving it, so no advantage over blocks.