|  | // Copyright 2020 The Monogon Project Authors. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); | 
|  | // you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. | 
|  | // You may obtain a copy of the License at | 
|  | // | 
|  | //     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software | 
|  | // distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | 
|  | // WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | 
|  | // See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | 
|  | // limitations under the License. | 
|  |  | 
|  | // Package event defines and implements Event Values, a mechanism in which | 
|  | // multiple consumers can watch a value for updates in a reliable way. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Values currently are kept in memory (see: MemoryValue), but a future | 
|  | // implementation might exist for other storage backends, eg. etcd. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Background and intended use | 
|  | // | 
|  | // The Event Value library is intended to be used within Metropolis' | 
|  | // supervisor-based runnables to communicate state changes to other runnables, | 
|  | // while permitting both sides to restart if needed. It grew out of multiple | 
|  | // codebases reimplementing an ad-hoc observer pattern, and from the | 
|  | // realization that implementing all possible edge cases of such patterns is | 
|  | // non-trivial and subject to programming errors. As such, it was turned into a | 
|  | // self-standing library. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Why not just channels? | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Plain channels have multiple deficiencies for this usecase: | 
|  | //  - Strict FIFO behaviour: all values sent to a channel must be received, and | 
|  | //    historic and newest data must be treated in the same way. This means that | 
|  | //    a consumer of state changes must process all updates to the value as if | 
|  | //    they are the newest, and unable to skip rapid updates when a system is | 
|  | //    slowly settling due to a cascading state change. | 
|  | //  - Implementation overhead: implementing an observer | 
|  | //    registration/unregistration pattern is prone to programming bugs, | 
|  | //    especially for features like always first sending the current state to a | 
|  | //    new observer. | 
|  | //  - Strict buffer size: due to their FIFO nature and the possibility of | 
|  | //    consumers not receiving actively, channels would have to buffer all | 
|  | //    existing updates, requiring some arbitrary best-guess channel buffer | 
|  | //    sizing that would still not prevent blocking writes or data loss in a | 
|  | //    worst case scenario. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Or, in other words: Go channels are a synchronization primitive, not a | 
|  | // ready-made solution to this problem. The Event Value implementation in fact | 
|  | // extensively uses Go channels within its implementation as a building block. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Why not just condition variables (sync.Cond)? | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Go's condition variable implementation doesn't fully address our needs | 
|  | // either: | 
|  | // - No context/canceling support: once a condition is being Wait()ed on, | 
|  | //   this cannot be interrupted. This is especially painful and unwieldy when | 
|  | //   dealing with context-heavy code, such as Metropolis. | 
|  | // - Spartan API: expecting users to plainly use sync.Cond is risky, as the API | 
|  | //   is fairly low-level. | 
|  | // - No solution for late consumers: late consumers (ones that missed the value | 
|  | //   being set by a producer) would still have to implement logic in order to | 
|  | //   find out such a value, as sync.Cond only supports what amounts to | 
|  | //   edge-level triggers as part of its Broadcast/Signal system. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // It would be possible to implement MemoryValue using a sync.Cond internally, | 
|  | // but such an implementation would likely be more complex than the current | 
|  | // implementation based on channels and mutexes, as it would have to work | 
|  | // around issues like lack of canceling, etc. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Type safety | 
|  | // | 
|  | // The Value/Watcher interfaces are, unfortunately, implemented using | 
|  | // interface{}. There was an attempt to use Go's existing generic types facility | 
|  | // (interfaces) to solve this problem. However, with Type Parameters likely soon | 
|  | // appearing in mainline Go, this was not a priority, as that will fully solve | 
|  | // this problem without requiring mental gymnastics. For now, users of this | 
|  | // library will have to write some boilerplate code to allow consumers/watchers | 
|  | // to access the data in a a typesafe manner without assertions. See | 
|  | // ExampleValue_full for one possible approach to this. | 
|  | package event | 
|  |  | 
|  | import ( | 
|  | "context" | 
|  | ) | 
|  |  | 
|  | // A Value is an 'Event Value', some piece of data that can be updated ('Set') | 
|  | // by Producers and retrieved by Consumers. | 
|  | type Value interface { | 
|  | // Set updates the Value to the given data. It is safe to call this from | 
|  | // multiple goroutines, including concurrently. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Any time Set is called, any consumers performing a Watch on this Value | 
|  | // will be notified with the new data - even if the Set data is the same as | 
|  | // the one that was already stored. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // A Value will initially have no data set. This 'no data' state is seen by | 
|  | // consumers by the first .Get() call on the Watcher blocking until data is Set. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // All updates will be serialized in an arbitrary order - if multiple | 
|  | // producers wish to perform concurrent actions to update the Value partially, | 
|  | // this should be negotiated and serialized externally by the producers. | 
|  | Set(val interface{}) | 
|  |  | 
|  | // ValueWatch implements the Watch method. It is split out into another | 
|  | // interface to allow some 'Event Values' to implement only the watch/read | 
|  | // part, with the write side being implicit or defined by a more complex | 
|  | // interface then a simple Set(). | 
|  | ValueWatch | 
|  | } | 
|  |  | 
|  | // ValueWatch is the read side of an 'Event Value', witch can by retrieved by | 
|  | // Consumers by performing a Watch operation on it. | 
|  | type ValueWatch interface { | 
|  | // Watch retrieves a Watcher that keeps track on the version of the data | 
|  | // contained within the Value that was last seen by a consumer. Once a | 
|  | // Watcher is retrieved, it can be used to then get the actual data stored | 
|  | // within the Value, and to reliably retrieve updates to it without having | 
|  | // to poll for changes. | 
|  | Watch() Watcher | 
|  | } | 
|  |  | 
|  | // A Watcher keeps track of the last version of data seen by a consumer for a | 
|  | // given Value. Each consumer should use an own Watcher instance, and it is not | 
|  | // safe to use this type concurrently. However, it is safe to move/copy it | 
|  | // across different goroutines, as long as no two goroutines access it | 
|  | // simultaneously. | 
|  | type Watcher interface { | 
|  | // Get blocks until a Value's data is available: | 
|  | //  - On first use of a Watcher, Get will return the data contained in the | 
|  | //    value at the time of calling .Watch(), or block if no data has been | 
|  | //    .Set() on it yet. If a value has been Set() since the the initial | 
|  | //    creation of the Watch() but before Get() is called for the first | 
|  | //    time, the first Get() call will immediately return the new value. | 
|  | //  - On subsequent uses of a Watcher, Get will block until the given Value | 
|  | //    has been Set with new data. This does not necessarily mean that the | 
|  | //    new data is different - consumers should always perform their own | 
|  | //    checks on whether the update is relevant to them (ie., the data has | 
|  | //    changed in a significant way), unless specified otherwise by a Value | 
|  | //    publisher. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Get() will always return the current newest data that has been Set() on | 
|  | // the Value, and not a full log of historical events. This is geared | 
|  | // towards event values where consumers only care about changes to data | 
|  | // since last retrieval, not every value that has been Set along the way. | 
|  | // Thus, consumers need not make sure that they actively .Get() on a | 
|  | // watcher all the times. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // If the context is canceled before data is available to be returned, the | 
|  | // context's error will be returned. However, the Watcher will still need to be | 
|  | // Closed, as it is still fully functional after the context has been canceled. | 
|  | // | 
|  | // Concurrent requests to Get result in an error. The reasoning to return | 
|  | // an error instead of attempting to serialize the requests is that any | 
|  | // concurrent access from multiple goroutines would cause a desync in the | 
|  | // next usage of the Watcher. For example: | 
|  | //   1) w.Get() (in G0) and w.Get(G1) start. They both block waiting for an | 
|  | //      initial value. | 
|  | //   2) v.Set(0) | 
|  | //   3) w.Get() in G0 returns 0, | 
|  | //   4) v.Set(1) | 
|  | //   4) w.Get() in G1 returns 1, | 
|  | // This would cause G0 and G1 to become desynchronized between eachother | 
|  | // (both have different value data) and subsequent updates will also | 
|  | // continue skipping some updates. | 
|  | // If multiple goroutines need to access the Value, they should each use | 
|  | // their own Watcher. | 
|  | Get(context.Context, ...GetOption) (interface{}, error) | 
|  |  | 
|  | // Close must be called if the Watcher is not going to be used anymore - | 
|  | // otherwise, a goroutine will leak. | 
|  | Close() error | 
|  | } | 
|  |  | 
|  | type GetOption interface{} |