Merge pull request #17989 from 2m/wip-detached-docs-drewhk
Add documentation for DetachedStages
This commit is contained in:
commit
0bcc996cc7
9 changed files with 2574 additions and 24 deletions
|
|
@ -239,7 +239,8 @@ class FlexiDocSpec extends AkkaSpec {
|
|||
"flexi route completion handling" in {
|
||||
import FanOutShape._
|
||||
//#flexiroute-completion
|
||||
class ImportantRouteShape[A](_init: Init[A] = Name[A]("ImportantRoute")) extends FanOutShape[A](_init) {
|
||||
class ImportantRouteShape[A](_init: Init[A] = Name[A]("ImportantRoute"))
|
||||
extends FanOutShape[A](_init) {
|
||||
val important = newOutlet[A]("important")
|
||||
val additional1 = newOutlet[A]("additional1")
|
||||
val additional2 = newOutlet[A]("additional2")
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -124,6 +124,55 @@ class FlowStagesSpec extends AkkaSpec with ScalaFutures {
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
"demonstrate DetachedStage" in {
|
||||
//#detached
|
||||
class Buffer2[T]() extends DetachedStage[T, T] {
|
||||
private var buf = Vector.empty[T]
|
||||
private var capacity = 2
|
||||
|
||||
private def isFull = capacity == 0
|
||||
private def isEmpty = capacity == 2
|
||||
|
||||
private def dequeue(): T = {
|
||||
capacity += 1
|
||||
val next = buf.head
|
||||
buf = buf.tail
|
||||
next
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
private def enqueue(elem: T) = {
|
||||
capacity -= 1
|
||||
buf = buf :+ elem
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
override def onPull(ctx: DetachedContext[T]): DownstreamDirective = {
|
||||
if (isEmpty) {
|
||||
if (ctx.isFinishing) ctx.finish() // No more elements will arrive
|
||||
else ctx.holdDownstream() // waiting until new elements
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
val next = dequeue()
|
||||
if (ctx.isHoldingUpstream) ctx.pushAndPull(next) // release upstream
|
||||
else ctx.push(next)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
override def onPush(elem: T, ctx: DetachedContext[T]): UpstreamDirective = {
|
||||
enqueue(elem)
|
||||
if (isFull) ctx.holdUpstream() // Queue is now full, wait until new empty slot
|
||||
else {
|
||||
if (ctx.isHoldingDownstream) ctx.pushAndPull(dequeue()) // Release downstream
|
||||
else ctx.pull()
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
override def onUpstreamFinish(ctx: DetachedContext[T]): TerminationDirective = {
|
||||
if (!isEmpty) ctx.absorbTermination() // still need to flush from buffer
|
||||
else ctx.finish() // already empty, finishing
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
//#detached
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -25,10 +25,14 @@ The most elementary transformation stage is the :class:`PushPullStage` which can
|
|||
working on streams. A :class:`PushPullStage` can be illustrated as a box with two "input" and two "output ports" as it is
|
||||
seen in the illustration below.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_conceptual.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
:width: 600
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
The "input ports" are implemented as event handlers ``onPush(elem,ctx)`` and ``onPull(ctx)`` while "output ports"
|
||||
correspond to methods on the :class:`Context` object that is handed as a parameter to the event handlers. By calling
|
||||
exactly one "output port" method we wire up these four ports in various ways which we demonstrate shortly.
|
||||
|
|
@ -42,10 +46,14 @@ exactly one "output port" method we wire up these four ports in various ways whi
|
|||
|
||||
To illustrate these concepts we create a small :class:`PushPullStage` that implements the ``map`` transformation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_map.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
:width: 300
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
Map calls ``ctx.push()`` from the ``onPush()`` handler and it also calls ``ctx.pull()`` form the ``onPull``
|
||||
handler resulting in the conceptual wiring above, and fully expressed in code below:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -54,10 +62,14 @@ handler resulting in the conceptual wiring above, and fully expressed in code be
|
|||
Map is a typical example of a one-to-one transformation of a stream. To demonstrate a many-to-one stage we will implement
|
||||
filter. The conceptual wiring of ``Filter`` looks like this:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_filter.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
:width: 300
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
As we see above, if the given predicate matches the current element we are propagating it downwards, otherwise
|
||||
we return the "ball" to our upstream so that we get the new element. This is achieved by modifying the map
|
||||
example by adding a conditional in the ``onPush`` handler and decide between a ``ctx.pull()`` or ``ctx.push()`` call
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,10 +80,14 @@ example by adding a conditional in the ``onPush`` handler and decide between a `
|
|||
To complete the picture we define a one-to-many transformation as the next step. We chose a straightforward example stage
|
||||
that emits every upstream element twice downstream. The conceptual wiring of this stage looks like this:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_doubler.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
:width: 300
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
This is a stage that has state: the last element it has seen, and a flag ``oneLeft`` that indicates if we
|
||||
have duplicated this last element already or not. Looking at the code below, the reader might notice that our ``onPull``
|
||||
method is more complex than it is demonstrated by the figure above. The reason for this is completion handling, which we
|
||||
|
|
@ -83,14 +99,29 @@ corresponds to the logic we expect by looking at the conceptual picture.
|
|||
Finally, to demonstrate all of the stages above, we put them together into a processing chain, which conceptually
|
||||
would correspond to the following structure:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_chain.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
:width: 650
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
In code this is only a few lines, using the ``transform`` method to inject our custom processing into a stream:
|
||||
|
||||
.. includecode:: code/docs/stream/FlowStagesSpec.scala#stage-chain
|
||||
|
||||
If we attempt to draw the sequence of events, it shows that there is one "event token"
|
||||
in circulation in a potential chain of stages, just like our conceptual "railroad tracks" representation predicts.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_msc_general.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Completion handling
|
||||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -105,16 +136,39 @@ calling ``absorbTermination()`` the ``onPull()`` handler will be called eventual
|
|||
``ctx.isFinishing`` will return true, indicating that ``ctx.pull()`` cannot be called anymore. Now we are free to
|
||||
emit additional elementss and call ``ctx.finish()`` or ``ctx.pushAndFinish()`` eventually to finish processing.
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
The reason for this slightly complex termination sequence is that the underlying ``onComplete`` signal of
|
||||
Reactive Streams may arrive without any pending demand, i.e. without respecting backpressure. This means that
|
||||
our push/pull structure that was illustrated in the figure of our custom processing chain does not
|
||||
apply to termination. Our neat model that is analogous to a ball that bounces back-and-forth in a
|
||||
pipe (it bounces back on ``Filter``, ``Duplicator`` for example) cannot describe the termination signals. By calling
|
||||
``absorbTermination()`` the execution environment checks if the conceptual token was *above* the current stage at
|
||||
that time (which means that it will never come back, so the environment immediately calls ``onPull``) or it was
|
||||
*below* (which means that it will come back eventually, so the environment does not need to call anything yet).
|
||||
The reason for this slightly complex termination sequence is that the underlying ``onComplete`` signal of
|
||||
Reactive Streams may arrive without any pending demand, i.e. without respecting backpressure. This means that
|
||||
our push/pull structure that was illustrated in the figure of our custom processing chain does not
|
||||
apply to termination. Our neat model that is analogous to a ball that bounces back-and-forth in a
|
||||
pipe (it bounces back on ``Filter``, ``Duplicator`` for example) cannot describe the termination signals. By calling
|
||||
``absorbTermination()`` the execution environment checks if the conceptual token was *above* the current stage at
|
||||
that time (which means that it will never come back, so the environment immediately calls ``onPull``) or it was
|
||||
*below* (which means that it will come back eventually, so the environment does not need to call anything yet).
|
||||
|
||||
The first of the two scenarios is when a termination signal arrives after a stage passed the event to its downstream. As
|
||||
we can see in the following diagram, there is no need to do anything by ``absorbTermination()`` since the black arrows
|
||||
representing the movement of the "event token" is uninterrupted.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_msc_absorb_1.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
In the second scenario the "event token" is somewhere upstream when the termination signal arrives. In this case
|
||||
``absorbTermination`` needs to ensure that a new "event token" is generated replacing the old one that is forever gone
|
||||
(since the upstream finished). This is done by calling the ``onPull()`` event handler of the stage.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_msc_absorb_2.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
Observe, that in both scenarios ``onPull()`` kicks off the continuation of the processing logic, the only difference is
|
||||
whether it is the downstream or the ``absorbTermination()`` call that calls the event handler.
|
||||
|
||||
Using PushStage
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
|
@ -146,7 +200,48 @@ we reimplemented ``Duplicator`` in terms of a ``StatefulStage``:
|
|||
Using DetachedStage
|
||||
-------------------
|
||||
|
||||
*TODO*
|
||||
The model described in previous sections, while conceptually simple, cannot describe all desired stages. The main
|
||||
limitation is the "single-ball" (single "event token") model which prevents independent progress of an upstream and
|
||||
downstream of a stage. Sometimes it is desirable to *detach* the progress (and therefore, rate) of the upstream and
|
||||
downstream of a stage, synchronizing only when needed.
|
||||
|
||||
This is achieved in the model by representing a :class:`DetachedStage` as a *boundary* between two "single-ball" regions.
|
||||
One immediate consequence of this difference is that **it is not allowed to call** ``ctx.pull()`` **from** ``onPull()`` **and
|
||||
it is not allowed to call** ``ctx.push()`` **from** ``onPush()`` as such combinations would "steal" a token from one region
|
||||
(resulting in zero tokens left) and would inject an unexpected second token to the other region. This is enforced
|
||||
by the expected return types of these callback functions.
|
||||
|
||||
One of the important use-cases for :class:`DetachedStage` is to build buffer-like entities, that allow independent progress
|
||||
of upstream and downstream stages when the buffer is not full or empty, and slowing down the appropriate side if the
|
||||
buffer becomes empty or full. The next diagram illustrates the event sequence for a buffer with capacity of two elements.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
.. image:: ../images/stage_msc_buffer.png
|
||||
:align: center
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
The very first difference we can notice is that our ``Buffer`` stage is automatically pulling its upstream on
|
||||
initialization. Remember that it is forbidden to call ``ctx.pull`` from ``onPull``, therefore it is the task of the
|
||||
framework to kick off the first "event token" in the upstream region, which will remain there until the upstream stages
|
||||
stop. The diagram distinguishes between the actions of the two regions by colors: *purple* arrows indicate the actions
|
||||
involving the upstream "event token", while *red* arrows show the downstream region actions. This demonstrates the clear
|
||||
separation of these regions, and the invariant that the number of tokens in the two regions are kept unchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
For buffer it is necessary to detach the two regions, but it is also necessary to sometimes hold back the upstream
|
||||
or downstream. The new API calls that are available for :class:`DetachedStage` s are the various ``ctx.holdXXX()`` methods
|
||||
, ``ctx.pushAndPull()`` and variants, and ``ctx.isHoldingXXX()``.
|
||||
Calling ``ctx.holdXXX()`` from ``onPull()`` or ``onPush`` results in suspending the corresponding
|
||||
region from progress, and temporarily taking ownership of the "event token". This state can be queried by ``ctx.isHolding()``
|
||||
which will tell if the stage is currently holding a token or not. It is only allowed to suspend one of the regions, not
|
||||
both, since that would disable all possible future events, resulting in a dead-lock. Releasing the held token is only
|
||||
possible by calling ``ctx.pushAndPull()``. This is to ensure that both the held token is released, and the triggering region
|
||||
gets its token back (one inbound token + one held token = two released tokens).
|
||||
|
||||
The following code example demonstrates the buffer class corresponding to the message sequence chart we discussed.
|
||||
|
||||
.. includecode:: code/docs/stream/FlowStagesSpec.scala#detached
|
||||
|
||||
Custom graph processing junctions
|
||||
=================================
|
||||
|
|
@ -295,7 +390,7 @@ we use the special :class:`SameState` object which signals :class:`FlexiRoute` t
|
|||
.. warning::
|
||||
While a :class:`RouteLogic` instance *may* be stateful, the :class:`FlexiRoute` instance
|
||||
*must not* hold any mutable state, since it may be shared across several materialized ``FlowGraph`` instances.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
.. note::
|
||||
It is only allowed to `emit` at most one element to each output in response to `onInput`, `IllegalStateException` is thrown.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue