Ayende @ Rahien

Hi!
My name is Oren Eini
Founder of Hibernating Rhinos LTD and RavenDB.
You can reach me by phone or email:

ayende@ayende.com

+972 52-548-6969

, @ Q c

Posts: 5,971 | Comments: 44,508

filter by tags archive

ChallengeModifying execution approaches


In RavenDB, we had this piece of code:

internal T[] LoadInternal<T>(string[] ids, string[] includes)
        {
            if(ids.Length == 0)
                return new T[0];

            IncrementRequestCount();
            Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("Bulk loading ids [{0}] from {1}", string.Join(", ", ids), StoreIdentifier));
            MultiLoadResult multiLoadResult;
            JsonDocument[] includeResults;
            JsonDocument[] results;
#if !SILVERLIGHT
            var sp = Stopwatch.StartNew();
#else
            var startTime = DateTime.Now;
#endif
            bool firstRequest = true;
            do
            {
                IDisposable disposable = null;
                if (firstRequest == false) // if this is a repeated request, we mustn't use the cached result, but have to re-query the server
                    disposable = DatabaseCommands.DisableAllCaching();
                using (disposable)
                    multiLoadResult = DatabaseCommands.Get(ids, includes);

                firstRequest = false;
                includeResults = SerializationHelper.RavenJObjectsToJsonDocuments(multiLoadResult.Includes).ToArray();
                results = SerializationHelper.RavenJObjectsToJsonDocuments(multiLoadResult.Results).ToArray();
            } while (
                AllowNonAuthoritiveInformation == false &&
                results.Any(x => x.NonAuthoritiveInformation ?? false) &&
#if !SILVERLIGHT
                sp.Elapsed < NonAuthoritiveInformationTimeout
#else 
                (DateTime.Now - startTime) < NonAuthoritiveInformationTimeout
#endif
                );

            foreach (var include in includeResults)
            {
                TrackEntity<object>(include);
            }

            return results
                .Select(TrackEntity<T>)
                .ToArray();
        }

And we needed to take this same piece of code and execute it in:

  • Async fashion
  • As part of a batch of queries (sending multiple requests to RavenDB in a single HTTP call).

Everything else is the same, but in each case the marked line is completely different.

When we had only one additional option, I choose the direct approach, and implement it using;

public Task<T[]> LoadAsync<T>(string[] ids)
{
    IncrementRequestCount();
    return AsyncDatabaseCommands.MultiGetAsync(ids)
        .ContinueWith(task => task.Result.Select(TrackEntity<T>).ToArray());
}

You might notice a few differences between those approaches. The implementation behave, most of the time, the same, but all the behavior for edge cases is wrong. The reason for that, by the way, is that initially the Load and LoadAsync impl was functionality the same, but the Load behavior kept getting more sophisticated, and I kept forgetting to also update the LoadAsync behavior.

When I started building support for batches, this really stumped me. The last thing that I wanted to do is to either try to maintain complex logic in three different location or have different behaviors depending if you were using a direct call, a batch or async call. Just trying to document that gave me a headache.

How would you approach solving this problem?

More posts in "Challenge" series:

  1. (28 Apr 2015) What is the meaning of this change?
  2. (26 Sep 2013) Spot the bug
  3. (27 May 2013) The problem of locking down tasks…
  4. (17 Oct 2011) Minimum number of round trips
  5. (23 Aug 2011) Recent Comments with Future Posts
  6. (02 Aug 2011) Modifying execution approaches
  7. (29 Apr 2011) Stop the leaks
  8. (23 Dec 2010) This code should never hit production
  9. (17 Dec 2010) Your own ThreadLocal
  10. (03 Dec 2010) Querying relative information with RavenDB
  11. (29 Jun 2010) Find the bug
  12. (23 Jun 2010) Dynamically dynamic
  13. (28 Apr 2010) What killed the application?
  14. (19 Mar 2010) What does this code do?
  15. (04 Mar 2010) Robust enumeration over external code
  16. (16 Feb 2010) Premature optimization, and all of that…
  17. (12 Feb 2010) Efficient querying
  18. (10 Feb 2010) Find the resource leak
  19. (21 Oct 2009) Can you spot the bug?
  20. (18 Oct 2009) Why is this wrong?
  21. (17 Oct 2009) Write the check in comment
  22. (15 Sep 2009) NH Prof Exporting Reports
  23. (02 Sep 2009) The lazy loaded inheritance many to one association OR/M conundrum
  24. (01 Sep 2009) Why isn’t select broken?
  25. (06 Aug 2009) Find the bug fixes
  26. (26 May 2009) Find the bug
  27. (14 May 2009) multi threaded test failure
  28. (11 May 2009) The regex that doesn’t match
  29. (24 Mar 2009) probability based selection
  30. (13 Mar 2009) C# Rewriting
  31. (18 Feb 2009) write a self extracting program
  32. (04 Sep 2008) Don't stop with the first DSL abstraction
  33. (02 Aug 2008) What is the problem?
  34. (28 Jul 2008) What does this code do?
  35. (26 Jul 2008) Find the bug fix
  36. (05 Jul 2008) Find the deadlock
  37. (03 Jul 2008) Find the bug
  38. (02 Jul 2008) What is wrong with this code
  39. (05 Jun 2008) why did the tests fail?
  40. (27 May 2008) Striving for better syntax
  41. (13 Apr 2008) calling generics without the generic type
  42. (12 Apr 2008) The directory tree
  43. (24 Mar 2008) Find the version
  44. (21 Jan 2008) Strongly typing weakly typed code
  45. (28 Jun 2007) Windsor Null Object Dependency Facility

Comments

Dave

Without having seen the rest of the code, the description of the problem screems 'strategy pattern' to me. If I assume that LoadInternal is used by all three implementations, settings a delegate (which is called on the marked line) could do the job.

Whether this is the correct solutions depends ofcourse on more than just the problem you've try to solve.

tobi

Besides using a delegate as Dave recommended, I would consider having just an async version and using a blocking wait around the call in the synchronous case. That makes for 99% code sharing.

Scooletz

Use lazy enumerable, like in the result of Future from NHibernate. Address the internal choice with a strategy, passing the rest of the code, which must be executed as a some-kind-of continuation. During iteration IEnumerable different actions can occur (the enumerable is produced via strategy, for instance AsynchGetStrategy : IGetStrategy). What do you think about it?

Duarte Nunes

Off the top of my head, I would have something like

IEnumerator LoadInternal<T, M>(string id, string[] includes, 
                                                     Func<string, string[], M> cmd,
                                                     Func<M, MultiLoadResult> unwrapper);

And pump the enumerator either sync or asynchronously. I guess you can sophisticate this a bit to be able to return a typed IEnumerator. (This smells kind of monady).

Chris Wright

I'm surprised that the strategy pattern is worthy of a name. It's just method object + inheritance, no?

Alex Simkin

@Chris Wright

Not only this pattern got a name, it even got two names. Strategy and State patterns are two names for the same programming construct.

Comment preview

Comments have been closed on this topic.

FUTURE POSTS

  1. Paying the rent online - one day from now

There are posts all the way to Aug 03, 2015

RECENT SERIES

  1. Production postmortem (5):
    29 Jul 2015 - The evil licensing code
  2. Career planning (6):
    24 Jul 2015 - The immortal choices aren't
  3. API Design (7):
    20 Jul 2015 - We’ll let the users sort it out
  4. What is new in RavenDB 3.5 (3):
    15 Jul 2015 - Exploring data in the dark
  5. The RavenDB Comic Strip (3):
    28 May 2015 - Part III – High availability & sleeping soundly
View all series

Syndication

Main feed Feed Stats
Comments feed   Comments Feed Stats