I am currently working on a Java homework. I am asked to create a basic DNS server.
There is an UDPSender class which is a thread listening on port 53.
There is also another thread which is called UDPManager.
UDPManager starts a thread with a nested runnable class which holds an ArrayList of DatagramPacket. The UDPSender aggregates the UDPManager and whenever it receives an UDP packet, it sends it to the manager for him to add it to the arrayList.
import java.net.DatagramPacket;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.HashMap;
public class UDPManager {
private UDPManagerRunnable manager;
public UDPManager(String hostsFile, String remoteDNS, boolean localResolution) {
manager = new UDPManagerRunnable(hostsFile, remoteDNS, localResolution);
new Thread(manager).start();
}
public void managePacket(DatagramPacket p) {
manager.managePacket(p);
}
public void close() {
manager.close();
}
private class UDPManagerRunnable implements Runnable {
private ArrayList<DatagramPacket> packets;
private HashMap<Integer, String> clients;
private boolean localResolution;
private boolean running;
private String hostsFile;
private String remoteDNS;
public UDPManagerRunnable(String hostsFile, String remoteDNS, boolean localResolution) {
packets = new ArrayList<DatagramPacket>();
clients = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
this.localResolution = localResolution;
this.running = true;
this.hostsFile = hostsFile;
this.remoteDNS = remoteDNS;
}
public void managePacket(DatagramPacket p) {
packets.add(p);
System.out.println("Received packet. "+packets.size());
}
public void close() {
running = false;
}
public void run() {
DatagramPacket currentPacket = null;
while(running) {
if(!packets.isEmpty()) {
currentPacket = packets.remove(0);
byte[] data = currentPacket.getData();
int anCountValue = data[Constant.ANCOUNT_BYTE_INDEX];
if(anCountValue == Constant.ANCOUNT_REQUEST)
this.processRequest(currentPacket);
else if(anCountValue == Constant.ANCOUNT_ONE_ANSWER)
this.processResponse(currentPacket);
}
}
}
private void processRequest(DatagramPacket packet) {
System.out.println("it's a request!");
}
private void processResponse(DatagramPacket packet) {
System.out.println("it's a response!");
}
}
}
This is the UDPManager. The packets are transmitted to the manager correctly as the System.out.println correctly displays "Received packet." and the size of the array does increase. The problem I'm running into is that inside the "run()" it never see the size increasing. The weird thing is that it works perfectly fine in debug.
Any idea why it's acting this way?
Thanks a lot for your help.
The problem is, that your first thread is putting the new data into the packets variable, but for the second thread this is not visible. You should synchronize the access to the array.
When you start a second thread all variables are copied. The second thread is only working on the copies. You need to synchronize access to this variables, so changes are made visible to the other threads.
you should synchronize packets when you access or modify it
Related
I want to use Netflix-Ribbon as TCP client load balancer without Spring Cloud,and i write test code.
public class App implements Runnable
{
public static String msg = "hello world";
public BaseLoadBalancer lb;
public RxClient<ByteBuf, ByteBuf > client;
public Server echo;
App(){
lb = new BaseLoadBalancer();
echo = new Server("localhost", 8000);
lb.setServersList(Lists.newArrayList(echo));
DefaultClientConfigImpl impl = DefaultClientConfigImpl.getClientConfigWithDefaultValues();
client = RibbonTransport.newTcpClient(lb, impl);
}
public static void main( String[] args ) throws Exception
{
for( int i = 40; i > 0; i--)
{
Thread t = new Thread(new App());
t.start();
t.join();
}
System.out.println("Main thread is finished");
}
public String sendAndRecvByRibbon(final String data)
{
String response = "";
try {
response = client.connect().flatMap(new Func1<ObservableConnection<ByteBuf, ByteBuf>,
Observable<ByteBuf>>() {
public Observable<ByteBuf> call(ObservableConnection<ByteBuf, ByteBuf> connection) {
connection.writeStringAndFlush(data);
return connection.getInput();
}
}).timeout(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS).retry(1).take(1)
.map(new Func1<ByteBuf, String>() {
public String call(ByteBuf ByteBuf) {
return ByteBuf.toString(Charset.defaultCharset());
}
})
.toBlocking()
.first();
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(((LoadBalancingRxClientWithPoolOptions) client).getMaxConcurrentRequests());
System.out.println(lb.getLoadBalancerStats());
}
return response;
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
sendAndRecvByRibbon(msg);
}
}
}
i find it will create a new socket everytime i callsendAndRecvByRibbon even though the poolEnabled is setting to true. So,it confuse me,i miss something?
and there are no option to configure the size of the pool,but hava a PoolMaxThreads and MaxConnectionsPerHost.
My question is how to use a connection pool in my simple code, and what's wrong with my sendAndRecvByRibbon,it open a socket then use it only once,how can i reuse the connection?thanks for your time.
the server is just a simple echo server writing in pyhton3,i comment outconn.close() because i want to use long connection.
import socket
import threading
import time
import socketserver
class ThreadedTCPRequestHandler(socketserver.BaseRequestHandler):
def handle(self):
conn = self.request
while True:
client_data = conn.recv(1024)
if not client_data:
time.sleep(5)
conn.sendall(client_data)
# conn.close()
class ThreadedTCPServer(socketserver.ThreadingMixIn, socketserver.TCPServer):
pass
if __name__ == "__main__":
HOST, PORT = "localhost", 8000
server = ThreadedTCPServer((HOST, PORT), ThreadedTCPRequestHandler)
ip, port = server.server_address
server_thread = threading.Thread(target=server.serve_forever)
server_thread.daemon = True
server_thread.start()
server.serve_forever()
and the pom of mevan,i just add two dependency in IED's auto generated POM.
<dependency>
<groupId>commons-configuration</groupId>
<artifactId>commons-configuration</artifactId>
<version>1.6</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>com.netflix.ribbon</groupId>
<artifactId>ribbon</artifactId>
<version>2.2.2</version>
</dependency>
the code for printing src_port
#Sharable
public class InHandle extends ChannelInboundHandlerAdapter {
public void channelRead(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, Object msg) throws Exception {
System.out.println(ctx.channel().localAddress());
super.channelRead(ctx, msg);
}
}
public class Pipeline implements PipelineConfigurator<ByteBuf, ByteBuf> {
public InHandle handler;
Pipeline() {
handler = new InHandle();
}
public void configureNewPipeline(ChannelPipeline pipeline) {
pipeline.addFirst(handler);
}
}
and change the client = RibbonTransport.newTcpClient(lb, impl);to Pipeline pipe = new Pipeline();client = RibbonTransport.newTcpClient(lb, pipe, impl, new DefaultLoadBalancerRetryHandler(impl));
So, your App() constructor does the initialization of lb/client/etc.
Then you're starting 40 different threads with 40 different RxClient instances (each instance has own pool by default) by calling new App() in the first for loop. To make things clear - the way you spawn multiple RxClient instances here does not allow them to share any common pool. Try to use one RxClient instance instead.
What if you change your main method like below, does it stop creating extra sockets?
public static void main( String[] args ) throws Exception
{
App app = new App() // Create things just once
for( int i = 40; i > 0; i--)
{
Thread t = new Thread(()->app.run()); // pass the run()
t.start();
t.join();
}
System.out.println("Main thread is finished");
}
If above does not help fully (at least it will reduce created sockets count in 40 times) - can you please clarify how exactly do you determine that:
i find it will create a new socket everytime i call sendAndRecvByRibbon
and what are your measurements after you update constructor with this line:
DefaultClientConfigImpl impl = DefaultClientConfigImpl.getClientConfigWithDefaultValues();
impl.set(CommonClientConfigKey.PoolMaxThreads,1); //Add this one and test
Update
Yes, looking at the sendAndRecvByRibbon it seems that it lacks marking the PooledConnection as no longer acquired by calling close once you don't expect any further reads from it.
As long as you expect the only single read event, just change this line
connection.getInput()
to the
return connection.getInput().zipWith(Observable.just(connection), new Func2<ByteBuf, ObservableConnection<ByteBuf, ByteBuf>, ByteBuf>() {
#Override
public ByteBuf call(ByteBuf byteBuf, ObservableConnection<ByteBuf, ByteBuf> conn) {
conn.close();
return byteBuf;
}
});
Note, that if you'd design more complex protocol over TCP, then input bytebuf can be analyzed for your specific 'end of communication' sign which indicates the connection can be returned to the pool.
I have classes Source, Intermediate and Destination. Source class has method which with some probability receives new packets to send. Whenever packet is received it should be broadcasted (simulated by some setPacket method) to all neighbor intermediate nodes. Intermediate nodes should broadcast those packets to their neighbors until packets reach destination. The problem is whenever the chain of packet transmission is started source node stops running its method for getting new packets. So, basically the source class is frozen while chain of functions are working. Is there any way to run these two processes simultaneously? (It's like Source node will send request to Intermediate class and that one will do it's work independently) I tried for each of three classes to extend Thread class but still transmission chain is freezing Source class. The language used is Java, but if there any other language that could do the job, I can switch to them.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// init nodes
SourceNode sourceNode = new SourceNode();
IntermediateNode intermediateNode1 = new IntermediateNode();
IntermediateNode intermediateNode2 = new IntermediateNode();
IntermediateNode intermediateNode3 = new IntermediateNode();
DestinationNode destinationNode = new DestinationNode();
// create network topology, S - I - I - I - D
sourceNode.setNextNode(intermediateNode1);
intermediateNode1.setNextNode(intermediateNode2);
intermediateNode2.setNextNode(intermediateNode3);
intermediateNode3.setNextNode(destinationNode);
// setup listeners
sourceNode.setSetupMessageListener(intermediateNode1);
intermediateNode1.setSetupMessageListener(intermediateNode2);
intermediateNode2.setSetupMessageListener(intermediateNode3);
intermediateNode3.setSetupMessageListener(destinationNode);
sourceNode.run();
}
}
public interface SetupMessageListener {
void onNewSetupMessage();
}
public class Node {
protected SetupMessageListener setupMessageListener;
protected Node nextNode;
public void setNextNode(Node nextNode) {
this.nextNode = nextNode;
}
public void setSetupMessageListener(SetupMessageListener setupMessageListener) {
this.setupMessageListener = setupMessageListener;
}
}
import java.util.Random;
public class SourceNode extends Node implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
// simulate generating new setup message with probability 1/10
Random random = new Random();
int rv = random.nextInt(10);
if (rv == 0) {
createNewSetupMessage();
}
}
}
public void createNewSetupMessage() {
System.out.println("New setup message was created in Source Node");
if (setupMessageListener != null) {
setupMessageListener.onNewSetupMessage();
}
}
}
public class IntermediateNode extends Node implements SetupMessageListener {
public static int count = 0;
private int id;
public IntermediateNode() {
id = count++;
}
#Override
public void onNewSetupMessage() {
System.out.println("Intermediate Node " + id + " got notified about setup message");
// pass setup message to next neighbor
setupMessageListener.onNewSetupMessage();
}
}
public class DestinationNode extends Node implements SetupMessageListener {
#Override
public void onNewSetupMessage() {
System.out.println("Destination Node got notified about new setup message");
}
}
And the example output is
New setup message was created in Source Node
Intermediate Node 0 got notified about setup message
Intermediate Node 1 got notified about setup message
Intermediate Node 2 got notified about setup message
Destination Node got notified about new setup message
New setup message was created in Source Node
Intermediate Node 0 got notified about setup message
However, I want it to be smth like
New setup message was created in Source Node
Intermediate Node 0 got notified about setup message
New setup message was created in Source Node
Intermediate Node 1 got notified about setup message
Intermediate Node 0 got notified about setup message
Intermediate Node 2 got notified about setup message
Destination Node got notified about new setup message
The thing is that the whole message passing is done in the main thread....you need to implement the functionality of createNewSetupMessage and onNewMessageSetup as instances of Runnable and initiate new threads to run them.
public class SetupMessageSender implements Runnable{
private SetupMessageListener setupMessageListener;
public SetupMessageSender(SetupMessageListener setupMessageListener){
this.setupMessageListener = setupMessageListener;
}
#Override
public void run() {
if (setupMessageListener != null) {
setupMessageListener.onNewSetupMessage();
}
}
public SetupMessageListener getSetupMessageListener() {
return this.setupMessageListener;
}
public void setSetupMessageListener(SetupMessageListener setupMessageListener) {
this.setupMessageListener = setupMessageListener;
}
}
then
public void createNewSetupMessage() {
System.out.println("New setup message was created in Source Node");
Thread smService = new Thread(new SetupMessageSender(this.setupMessageListener));
smService.start();
}
Be careful though at node listeners onNewMessageSetup, because it will need a bit of syncronization depending on the topology(e.g if an intermediate node is listener for more than one different nodes), so make it
#Override
public synchronized void onNewSetupMessage() {
System.out.println("Intermediate Node " + id + " got notified about setup message");
// pass setup message to next neighbor
Thread smService = new Thread(new SetupMessageSender(this.setupMessageListener));
smService.start();
}
Although the 2 methods provide the same functionality and you could implement them at your base class Node as a single method.
i have joined to one of those Vertx lovers , how ever the single threaded main frame may not be working for me , because in my server there might be 50 file download requests at a moment , as a work around i have created this class
public abstract T onRun() throws Exception;
public abstract void onSuccess(T result);
public abstract void onException();
private static final int poolSize = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
private static final long maxExecuteTime = 120000;
private static WorkerExecutor mExecutor;
private static final String BG_THREAD_TAG = "BG_THREAD";
protected RoutingContext ctx;
private boolean isThreadInBackground(){
return Thread.currentThread().getName() != null && Thread.currentThread().getName().equals(BG_THREAD_TAG);
}
//on success will not be called if exception be thrown
public BackgroundExecutor(RoutingContext ctx){
this.ctx = ctx;
if(mExecutor == null){
mExecutor = MyVertxServer.vertx.createSharedWorkerExecutor("my-worker-pool",poolSize,maxExecuteTime);
}
if(!isThreadInBackground()){
/** we are unlocking the lock before res.succeeded , because it might take long and keeps any thread waiting */
mExecutor.executeBlocking(future -> {
try{
Thread.currentThread().setName(BG_THREAD_TAG);
T result = onRun();
future.complete(result);
}catch (Exception e) {
GUI.display(e);
e.printStackTrace();
onException();
future.fail(e);
}
/** false here means they should not be parallel , and will run without order multiple times on same context*/
},false, res -> {
if(res.succeeded()){
onSuccess((T)res.result());
}
});
}else{
GUI.display("AVOIDED DUPLICATE BACKGROUND THREADING");
System.out.println("AVOIDED DUPLICATE BACKGROUND THREADING");
try{
T result = onRun();
onSuccess((T)result);
}catch (Exception e) {
GUI.display(e);
e.printStackTrace();
onException();
}
}
}
allowing the handlers to extend it and use it like this
public abstract class DefaultFileHandler implements MyHttpHandler{
public abstract File getFile(String suffix);
#Override
public void Handle(RoutingContext ctx, VertxUtils utils, String suffix) {
new BackgroundExecutor<Void>(ctx) {
#Override
public Void onRun() throws Exception {
File file = getFile(URLDecoder.decode(suffix, "UTF-8"));
if(file == null || !file.exists()){
utils.sendResponseAndEnd(ctx.response(),404);
return null;
}else{
utils.sendFile(ctx, file);
}
return null;
}
#Override
public void onSuccess(Void result) {}
#Override
public void onException() {
utils.sendResponseAndEnd(ctx.response(),404);
}
};
}
and here is how i initialize my vertx server
vertx.deployVerticle(MainDeployment.class.getCanonicalName(),res -> {
if (res.succeeded()) {
GUI.display("Deployed");
} else {
res.cause().printStackTrace();
}
});
server.requestHandler(router::accept).listen(port);
and here is my MainDeployment class
public class MainDeployment extends AbstractVerticle{
#Override
public void start() throws Exception {
// Different ways of deploying verticles
// Deploy a verticle and don't wait for it to start
for(Entry<String, MyHttpHandler> entry : MyVertxServer.map.entrySet()){
MyVertxServer.router.route(entry.getKey()).handler(new Handler<RoutingContext>() {
#Override
public void handle(RoutingContext ctx) {
String[] handlerID = ctx.request().uri().split(ctx.currentRoute().getPath());
String suffix = handlerID.length > 1 ? handlerID[1] : null;
entry.getValue().Handle(ctx, new VertxUtils(), suffix);
}
});
}
}
}
this is working just fine when and where i need it , but i still wonder if is there any better way to handle concurencies like this on vertx , if so an example would be really appreciated . thanks alot
I don't fully understand your problem and reasons for your solution. Why don't you implement one verticle to handle your http uploads and deploy it multiple times? I think that handling 50 concurrent uploads should be a piece of cake for vert.x.
When deploying a verticle using a verticle name, you can specify the number of verticle instances that you want to deploy:
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions().setInstances(16);
vertx.deployVerticle("com.mycompany.MyOrderProcessorVerticle", options);
This is useful for scaling easily across multiple cores. For example you might have a web-server verticle to deploy and multiple cores on your machine, so you want to deploy multiple instances to take utilise all the cores.
http://vertx.io/docs/vertx-core/java/#_specifying_number_of_verticle_instances
vertx is a well-designed model so that a concurrency issue does not occur.
generally, vertx does not recommend the multi-thread model.
(because, handling is not easy.)
If you select multi-thread model, you have to think about shared data..
Simply, if you just only want to split EventLoop Area,
first of all, you make sure Check your a number of CPU Cores.
and then Set up the count of Instances .
DeploymentOptions options = new DeploymentOptions().setInstances(4);
vertx.deployVerticle("com.mycompany.MyOrderProcessorVerticle", options);
But, If you have 4cores of CPU, you don't set up over 4 instances.
If you set up to number four or more, the performance won't improve.
vertx concurrency reference
http://vertx.io/docs/vertx-core/java/
i'm writing a program that connects with various TCP network devices. The GUI is made using JavaFX. The whole connection part is in its own package "Network". Roughly described, it looks like this: (I don't know much about UML, no blaming plaese :/ - i just needed a way to quickly describe how my program structure looks). http://i.stack.imgur.com/PSdsH.jpg
okay thats how it is:
The TCP classes are stored in a synchronized List in "NetworkManager". These classes hold information about the connection (how much data received yet, ip, mac etc.). The Rcv-Thread constantly tries to receive data.
well, this is what i want:
As soon as the Rcv-Thread receives a specific message, the controller should be invoked to do something (GUI refresh or whatever). Also the controller should stay decoupled from the "Network" module-> it is reused in another project. I want to achieve this behaviour through an custom event. In short: TCP-Rcv-Thread needs to be able to give information to the Controller. But i dont really know how to get it all to work. Lets see where i am:
I have an event class in the "Network" module.
import java.util.EventObject;
public class XEvent extends EventObject{
String message;
public XEvent(Object source, String message) {
super(source);
this.message = message;
}
public String getMessage() {
return message;
}
}
I have a listener class in the "Network" module.
import java.util.EventListener;
public interface XListener extends EventListener{
void handlerMethod1(XEvent event);
void handlerMethod2(XEvent event);
}
I tried to prepare my Rcv-Thread for firing the event:
import javax.swing.event.EventListenerList;
import java.io.IOException;
public class ReceiveDataThread implements Runnable {
protected EventListenerList listenerList = new EventListenerList();
}
protected void addXListener(XListener xListener) {
listenerList.add(XListener.class, xListener);
}
protected void removeListener(XListener xListener) {
listenerList.remove(XListener.class, xListener);
}
protected void fireHandlerMethod1(String message) {
XEvent event = null;
Object[] list = listenerList.getListenerList();
for (int i = 0; i < list.length; i += 2) {
if (list[i] == XListener.class) {
if (event == null) event = new XEvent(this, message);
XListener l = (XListener) list[i + 1];
l.handlerMethod1(event);
}
}
}
protected void fireHandlerMethod2(String message) {
XEvent event = null;
Object[] list = listenerList.getListenerList();
for (int i = 0; i < list.length; i += 2) {
if (list[i] == XListener.class) {
if (event == null) event = new XEvent(this, message);
XListener l = (XListener) list[i + 1];
l.handlerMethod2(event);
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
String s;
while (!stopThread) {
s = receiveData();
System.out.println("test");
fireHandlerMethod1(s);
}
}
The Controller (this class should react on the custom events) implements the Listener:
public class Controller implements Initializable, XListener {
#Override
public void handlerMethod1(XEvent event) {
System.out.println("Event1: " + event.getMessage());
}
#Override
public void handlerMethod2(XEvent event) {
}
}
And from there on i'm not really shure how to get it work that my events (fired from my Rcv-Thread) are noticed by my controller class. I think i have to add a listener to every Rcv-Thread object via the controller class (just like when i use a ButtonListener, ...) . The problem is: from my TCP Class i can't access the Rcv-Thread-object's addXListener method - even when set to public (but i can access the Rcv-Thread-Classes from the list). I tried to read as much as i can about the problem but cant figure out how to get this to work. What am i missing?
edit1: TCP class:
public class TCPClass{
private Thread receiveDataThread;
private String MAC;
private InetAddress IP;
private Socket socket = new Socket();
private int tcpSendPort;
private int timeOut = 10;
private ObjectOutputStream objectOutputStream;
private BufferedReader bufferedReader;
private String connectionStatus = "offline";
public TCPClass(DatagramPacket datagramPacket) {
IP = datagramPacket.getAddress();
setConnectionStatusOnline();
tcpSendPort = 50000 + NetworkManager.getNumberOfConnections();
MAC = extractMac(datagramPacket);
}
public void connect(int tcpPort) {
try {
socket = new Socket(IP, tcpPort, null, tcpSendPort);
bufferedReader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()));
receiveDataThread = new Thread(new ReceiveDataThread(this));
receiveDataThread.start();
InputStreamReader(socket.getInputStream()));
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
System.out.println("on MAC: " + getMAC() + "\non Device:" + toString());
}
if (socket.isConnected()) {
setConnectionStatusConnected();
}
}
}
The NetworkManager creates an object of TCPClass and calls the connect() method.
Ok so after days i figured it out myself.
The main problem was that i was not able to call the addXListener() method of Rcv-Thread from the Controller. I took the Custom Event stuff out of the Rcv-Thread and moved it to the TCP-Class. Now i'm able to add the Listener to these classes. If i want to fire an event from the Rcv-Thread i simply call fireHandlerMethod() from its superclass (TCP-Class) - and everything works as expected.
I'm currently trying to communicate between java and flex by using sockets and AMF serialized objects.
On the java side I use Amf3Input and Amf3Output from BlazeDS (flex-messaging-common.jar and flex-messaging-core.jar).
The connection is correctly established, and if i try to send object from flex to java, i can easily read objects :
FLEX side :
protected function button2_clickHandler(event:MouseEvent):void
{
var tmp:FlexAck = new FlexAck;
tmp.id="123456789123456789123456789";
tmp.name="A";
tmp.source="Aaaaaa";
tmp.ackGroup=false;
s.writeObject(tmp);
s.flush();
}
JAVA side :
ServerSocket servSoc = new ServerSocket(8888);
Socket s = servSoc.accept();
Amf3Output amf3Output = new Amf3Output(SerializationContext.getSerializationContext());
amf3Output.setOutputStream(s.getOutputStream());
Amf3Input amf3Input = new Amf3Input(SerializationContext.getSerializationContext());
amf3Input.setInputStream(s.getInputStream());
while(true)
{
try
{
Object obj = amf3Input.readObject();
if(obj!=null){
if (obj instanceof AckOrder){
System.out.println(((AckOrder)obj).getId());
}
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
amf3Output.close();
amf3Input.close();
servSoc.close();
In this way it works perfectly, but the problem is to read objects sent from the java side.
The code I use in java is :
for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
ack = new AckOrder(i,"A","B", true);
amf3Output.writeObject(ack);
amf3Output.writeObjectEnd();
amf3Output.flush();
}
I have an handler on ProgressEvent.SOCKET_DATA :
trace((s.readObject() as FlexAck).id);
But I have errors such as :
Error #2030: End of File detected
Error #2006: Index Out of bound
If i add manipulations on ByteArrays, i manage to read the first object, but not the following.
s.readBytes(tmp,tmp.length);
content = clone(tmp);
(content.readObject());
trace("########################## OK OBJECT RECEIVED");
var ack:FlexAck = (tmp.readObject() as FlexAck);
trace("**********************> id = "+ack.id);
I've spent many our trying to find something in several forums etc, but nothing helped.
So if someone could help me it would be great.
Thanks
Sylvain
EDIT :
Here is an example that I thought should work, but doesn't I hope that it's better illustrate what I aim to do (permanent connection with socket and an exchange of messages).
Java class :
import java.net.ServerSocket;
import java.net.Socket;
import awl.oscare.protocol.AckOrder;
import flex.messaging.io.SerializationContext;
import flex.messaging.io.amf.Amf3Input;
import flex.messaging.io.amf.Amf3Output;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
while(true)
{
try {
ServerSocket servSoc = new ServerSocket(8888);
Socket s = servSoc.accept();
System.out.println("connection accepted");
Amf3Output amf3Output = new Amf3Output(SerializationContext.getSerializationContext());
amf3Output.setOutputStream(s.getOutputStream());
Amf3Input amf3Input = new Amf3Input(SerializationContext.getSerializationContext());
amf3Input.setInputStream(s.getInputStream());
while(true)
{
try
{
System.out.println("Reading object");
Object obj = amf3Input.readObject();
if(obj!=null)
{
System.out.println(obj.getClass());
if (obj instanceof AckOrder)
{
AckOrder order = new AckOrder();
order.setId(((AckOrder)obj).getId());
order.setName(((AckOrder)obj).getName());
order.setSource(((AckOrder)obj).getSource());
order.setAckGroup(((AckOrder)obj).isAckGroup());
System.out.println(((AckOrder)obj).getId());
amf3Output.writeObject(order);
amf3Output.writeObjectEnd();
amf3Output.flush();
}
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
amf3Output.close();
amf3Input.close();
servSoc.close();
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Java Serializable object :
package protocol;
import java.io.Serializable;
public class AckOrder implements Serializable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 5106528318894546695L;
private String id;
private String name;
private String source;
private boolean ackGroup = false;
public String getId() {
return this.id;
}
public void setId(String id) {
this.id = id;
}
public String getName() {
return this.name;
}
public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}
public void setSource(String source) {
this.source = source;
}
public String getSource() {
return this.source;
}
public void setAckGroup(boolean ackGroup) {
this.ackGroup = ackGroup;
}
public boolean isAckGroup() {
return this.ackGroup;
}
public AckOrder()
{
super();
}
}
Flex Side :
Main flex code :
<fx:Script>
<![CDATA[
import mx.collections.ArrayCollection;
import mx.controls.Alert;
import mx.events.FlexEvent;
import mx.utils.object_proxy;
private var _socket:Socket = new Socket();;
private function onCreationComplete():void
{
this._socket.connect("localhost",8888);
this._socket.addEventListener(ProgressEvent.SOCKET_DATA, onData);
}
private function onData(e:ProgressEvent):void
{
if(this._socket.bytesAvailable)
{
this._socket.endian = Endian.LITTLE_ENDIAN;
var objects:Array = [];
try{
while(this._socket.bytesAvailable > 0)
{
objects.push(this._socket.readObject());
}
}catch(e:Error){trace(e.message);}
trace("|"+(objects)+"|");
}
}
protected function sendButton_clickHandler(event:MouseEvent):void
{
var tmp:FlexAck = new FlexAck;
tmp.id="1";
tmp.name="A";
tmp.source="B";
tmp.ackGroup=false;
this._socket.writeObject(tmp);
this._socket.flush();
}
]]>
</fx:Script>
<s:Button x="0" y="0" name="send" label="Send" click="sendButton_clickHandler(event)"/>
Flex serializable object :
package
{
[Bindable]
[RemoteClass(alias="protocol.AckOrder")]
public class FlexAck
{
public function FlexAck()
{
}
public var id:String;
public var name:String;
public var source:String;
public var ackGroup:Boolean;
}
}
Edit 25/05/2011 :
I've added those listeners in my flex code :
this._socket.addEventListener(Event.ACTIVATE,onActivate);
this._socket.addEventListener(Event.CLOSE,onClose);
this._socket.addEventListener(Event.CONNECT,onConnect);
this._socket.addEventListener(Event.DEACTIVATE,onDeactivate);
this._socket.addEventListener(IOErrorEvent.IO_ERROR,onIOerror);
this._socket.addEventListener(SecurityErrorEvent.SECURITY_ERROR,onSecurityError);
But There's no errors and I still don't manage to receive objects correctly.
You have to send the AMF data as ByteArray on the server:
final ByteArrayOutputStream baos = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
amf3Output.setOutputStream(baos);
amf3Output.writeObject(order);
amf3Output.flush();
amf3Output.close();
s.getOutputStream().write(baos.toByteArray());
Then
this._socket.readObject()
works as expected !
Hi the problem is caused by the following:
An AMF stream is stateful. When it serializes objects, it compresses them relative to objects that it have already been written.
Compression is achieved by referencing previously sent class descriptions, string values and objects using indexes (so for example, if the first string you sent was "heloWorld", when you later send that string, the AMF stream will sent string index 0).
Unfortunately, ByteArray and Socket do not maintain reference tables between readObject calls. Thus, even if you keep appending your newly read objects to the end of the same ByteArray object, each call to readObject instantiates new reference tables, discarding previously created ones (this means it should work for repeated references to the same string within an object tree)
In your example, you are always writing the same string values to properties. Thus when you send the second object, its string properties are not serialized as strings, but as references to the strings in the previously written object.
The solution, is to create a new AMF stream for each object you send.
This is complete rubbish of course(!) It means we can't really utilize the compression in custom protocols. It would be much better if our protocols could decide when to reset the these reference tables, perhaps when they got too big.
For example, if you have an RPC protocol, it would be nice to have an AMF stream pass the remote method names as references rather than strings for speed...
I haven't checked but I think this sort of thing is done by RTMP. The reason it probably wouldn't have been made available in developer objects like ByteArray and Socket (sigh, I hope this isn't true) is because Adobe wants to push us towards LCDS...
Addendum/edit: just found this, which provides a solution http://code.google.com/p/cvlib/
After looking at the code, I think what you want to do on the Java end is this:
for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
ack = new AckOrder(i,"A","B", true);
amf3Output.writeObject(ack);
}
amf3Output.flush();
When you do 'flush', you're sending information over the socket so you only had one object being sent at a time. On the Flex end, you should always try to see what's the length of the object and make sure you're not going over it which would cause this error.
EDIT:
private var _socket:Socket = new Socket();
private function onCreationComplete():void
{
// Add connection socket info here
this._socket.addEventListener(ProgressEvent.SOCKET_DATA, onData);
}
// This gets called every time we get new info, as in after the server flushes
private function onData(e:ProgressEvent):void
{
if(this._socket.bytesAvailable)
{
this._socket.endian = Endian.LITTLE_ENDIAN; // Might not be needed, but often is
// Try to get objects
var objects:Array = [];
try{
while(this._socket.bytesAvailable > 0)
{
objects.push(this._socket.readObject());
}
}catch(e:Error){}
// Do something with objects array
}
}
The onData function is called continually (every time the server sends info) since everything is asynchronous.