As developers, we take on the risk of delivering large and complex applications to our clients. Often, contracts and the nature of the relationship places constraints on how we develop. An example is having a customer who has asked you to build a system to be deployed within their environment, but to develop it on your own turf. To do this, we need a precise understanding of the integration between our application and the client’s other systems.
To this end, simulators are a great way of (1) exploring integration requirements and (2) maximizing the chance of our applications actually working in the client’s environment. And after some experimentation, core.async looks like a promising choice for building them. Let’s explore why.
Note: some preliminary knowledge of clojure and core.async would be helpful before reading this post.
Let’s say we’re delivering a trading system to BigBank. One of the many things that our system won’t be responsible for is pricing. We’d be pulling prices from BigBank’s own pricing engine. But, we don’t have that pricing engine available to us for testing as it is proprietary code.
There could be other reasons for not having a test system available - perhaps the client/exchange doesn’t have a test instance, or they’re ridiculously expensive. I’ve once developed against a system that was “production” during business hours and “test” during all other hours. Don’t ever do that.
But, despite system availability - simulators are a good idea if you’re offsite or otherwise disconnected from that environment and the team that maintains that other system. Simulation offers quite a few benefits:
- It simplifies your application & infrastructure code by having just one code path. This is provided that your simulators are interacting with your app in the same way as production;
- It forces you to consider how the interfacing system(s) work and interact with your system and therefore the high-level design of all the interacting components; and
- You end up exploring interface requirements via code rather than documentation, which forces you to understand it more thoroughly.
But - simulators do add a code maintenance burden. They may grow into a large codebase that needs to be maintained alongside your production code. This is why I think clojure and core.async may be a good choice. Clojure code tends to be terser than Java (due to a huge reduction in line noise), and deals very well with concurrency issues.
Let’s add some details to our earlier requirements. This is a highly stripped-down version of a system I’ve worked with in real life, but let’s assume that the expected interaction between a pricing subscriber and a consumer is as follows:
We have a single pricing engine. Upon subscription, the engine will pump out prices for that subscription for 30 seconds, then stop. If subscribers attempt to re-use a subscription ID, then a message is logged and nothing will be published for that subscription.
Our pricing simulator can be thought of as two main procedures:
- Request receiver: Receive subscription requests, validate, and create subscriptions
- Price publisher: Send prices to a subscriber for a given subscription
In terms of cardinality, we’d have a single running (1) procedure, and multiple (2)’s - one for each open subscription. The first of these procedures is fairly straight-forward to express:
Even a programmer who doesn’t understand clojure would be able to understand what the code above is doing. We continually loop in the go-block to receive, validate the request against seen-ids, and call a function (receive-fn) using the request if it is valid.
Let’s define something we can use for that receive-fn (we’ll see how to tie it in further below):
The go-block will continually loop while the subscription is not over, and publish a random snapshot onto the prices channel.
Within the loop, the first thing we do is park on retrieving a value from a timeout channel. This will effectively ‘suspend’ the go block for a random period of time before continuing.
Then, we use the alts! macro to send a snapshot into the defined channel, but wait a maximum of ‘max-wait’ before looping again. The alts! macro (and its cousin alt!) allow you to specify one or more ‘channel operations’ (either puts or takes), and whichever is ready first will proceed. In our case, if the timeout channel returns something first, then we proceed without placing an item onto our ‘c’ channel (and loop again if necessary).
Finally, we return the channel where the subscription’s prices will be placed - the caller is free to do whatever it pleases with the resulting channel.
We almost have a working simulator. All that remains is a means of…
Hooking it up to the real world
To hook it up to the real world, we need to create a few more procedures:
- A process to continually read messages from some messaging source and pump them into a channel
- A process to continually read values from a channel and pump them into a messaging source
- A serialization/deserialization mechanism (obviously aligned to what your application is to use.)
The above pieces could be considered infrastructure pieces. Once written, they could be used across the code base for other simulators.
Suppose we had some transport-specific methods defined in the ‘zmq’ namespace. We can then hook channels up to the transport quite easily:
Tying it all together
And at long last - we have our core simulator function which will tie everything together:
Though I’m yet to use a core.async-backed system (simulator or otherwise) in a production setting, from this little exploration I can conclude a few things:
- The CSP programming model allows you to break your problem up quite naturally
- Terseness and simplicity of functions should mean easier maintenance
- The amount of ‘noise’ vs Java’s concurrency primitives (and Java in general) is incredibly low
- I’ve only touched the tip of what core.async is capable of doing. The library offers up a tonne of methods and primitive functions.
So, in short, I think I’ll be playing around with core.async a lot more!