[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3593?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15365110#comment-15365110
]
James E. King, III commented on THRIFT-3593:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}If the server is sending an event back to a client, does the server
still respond to function calls?{quote}
In the THRIFT-66 implementation the outbound message send was a different
thread than the inbound. Given it is an endpoint you have one thread handling
each of the ordered stream ingress and egress. The ingress reads a full
message at a time and delivers it to the multiplexed protocol handler as
always. In this particular scenario if we have an event subscription it must
be triggered by something like a database commit, or by a semaphore both of
which would wake up an independent thread to handle pushing the events as a
"reverse" request to the client's multiplexed server that has a handler for the
event being pushed.
One could use a simple (single threaded) server which means it can process one
request at a time; this does not preclude that executable from having another
thread listen to a database or semaphore and drive a push model send to each of
the registered clients. The simple vs. threaded server would only mean how
many concurrent requests that server can process... not a limitation on how the
push model would work.
The majority of these changes would be inside the transport layer, possibly
some in the server layer. The concept of an "endpoint" transport which can
both host one or more services (more than one by multiplexed protocol) and
simultaneously act as a client submitting request to the "endpoint" on the
other end of the socket is quite doable and ensures that the client initiates
the connection, but the server can then ask things of, or push things to the
client through the same socket connection.
> Add new IDL keyword 'signal' to be able that a server can actively send
> messages to all its connected clients to prevent polling
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-3593
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3593
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: AS3 - Compiler, AS3 - Library, C glib - Compiler, C glib
> - Library, C# - Compiler, C# - Library, C++ - Compiler, C++ - Library, Cocoa
> - Compiler, Cocoa - Library, Compiler (General), D - Compiler, D - Library,
> Dart - Compiler, Dart - Library, Delphi - Compiler, Delphi - Library,
> Documentation, Erlang - Compiler, Erlang - Library, Go - Compiler, Go -
> Library, Haskell - Compiler, Haskell - Library, Haxe - Compiler, Haxe -
> Library, Java - Compiler, Java - Library, JavaScript - Compiler, JavaScript -
> Library, Lua - Compiler, Lua - Library, Node.js - Compiler, Node.js -
> Library, Perl - Compiler, Perl - Library, PHP - Compiler, PHP - Library,
> Python - Compiler, Python - Library, Ruby - Compiler, Ruby - Library,
> Smalltalk - Compiler, Smalltalk - Library, Swift - Compiler, Test Suite,
> Tutorial
> Reporter: Sebastian Zenker
> Labels: push
>
> In our applications, we have very often the use case, that we actively want
> to inform all connected Thrift clients about state changes on the server
> side. Let me use a stupid example to explain what I whish. Let's assume we
> have service which represents a fan controller. This service allows to
> configure a target temperature and can be requested for the actual
> temperature and actual RPM.
> {code}
> service FanController
> {
> void setTargetTemperature(int t);
> int getTargetTemperature();
> int getActualTemperature();
> int getActualRPM();
> }
> {code}
> Our client application allows the user to set the target temperature and
> display the actual temperature and RPM.
> To implement such an application, we currently have two options when using
> the Thrift framework:
> 1.) Every client requests the actual temperature and RPM once per second.
> With other words: every client implements polling.
> 2.) We split service FanController into two different Thrift services. One
> which allows to configure the fan controller and a second one which is used
> by the server to notify all its clients about state changes. The first one is
> implemented by the "real" server and the second one is implemented by all
> clients and consists of some oneway methods only. So from a Thrift point of
> view, both sides are server & client. E.g.
> {code}
> service FanController
> {
> void setTargetTemperature(int t);
> int getTargetTemperature();
> void RegisterEvents(string hostname, int port); //use to tell the server,
> that it should establish a connection to hostname+port which implements
> FanControllerEvents
> void UnregisterEvents(string hostname, int port);
> }
> service FanControllerEvents
> {
> oneway void targetTemperatureChanged(int t);
> oneway void actualTemperatureChanged(int t);
> oneway void actualRPMChanged(int rpm);
> }
> {code}
> Both approaches have massive drawbacks. I think it is not worth the effort to
> explain why solution #1 (polling) sucks. But also solution #2 doesn't work
> well, because:
> * It requires every client to register its FanControllerEvents service at
> the server side by using FanController::RegisterEvents(). This doesn't work,
> in case the client resides behind a NAT-router, because so the "real" server
> cannot establish a TCP connection to the client.
> * It always requires at least two TCP connections which makes firewall
> configurations more complex.
> * The "real" server needs to maintain a list with all connected clients in
> the application logic. In case the actual RPM or temperature changes, the
> server needs to iterate over the list of all connected clients and call the
> corresponding function. Maintaining the list in the application logic adds
> extra complexity at the server side, which can be avoided and may be better
> part of the Thrift framework.
> * How to handle the case, if only 1 of the 2 TCP connections gets
> interrupted?
> * The fan controller service - which is logically one thing - gets splitted
> into two Thrift services: FanController + FanControllerEvents which decreases
> readability of the IDL file.
> To solve such a use case, my recommendation is the following: Add a new
> keyword like "signal" to the IDL language. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to
> define something like:
> {code}
> service FanController
> {
> void setTargetTemperature(int t);
> signal void targetTemperatureChanged(int t);
> signal void actualTemperatureChanged(int t);
> signal actualRPMChanged(int t);
> }
> {code}
> E.g. DBus (a IPC framework very often used in Linux environments) allows to
> specify signals in their interfaces. See also:
> http://dbus.freedesktop.org/doc/dbus-tutorial.html#signalprocedure
> It's a very intrusive wish, as it will effect all code generators and runtime
> libraries. What do you think?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
