We Keep Coding

Dependency injection of IHttpContextAccessor vs passing parameter up the method chain

Our application calls many external API's which take a session token of the current user as input. So what we currently do is in a controller, get the session token for the user and pass it into a service which in turn might call another service or some API client. To give an idea, we end up with something like this (example is .NET but something similar is I think possible in Java)
public IActionResult DoSomething(string something)
{
this.someService.DoSomethingForUser(this.HttpContext.SessionToken, something);
return View();
}
And then we have
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IApiClient apiClient;
public SomeService(IApiClient apiClient)
{
this.apiClient = apiClient;
}
public void DoSomethingForUser(string sessionToken, something)
{
this.apiClient.DoSomethingForUser(sessionToken, something);
}
}
It can also happen that in SomeService another service is injected which in turn calls the IApiClient instead of SomeService calling IApiClient directly, basically adding another "layer".
We had a discussion with the team if it isn't better to instead of passing the session token, inject it using DI so you get something like this:
public IActionResult DoSomething(string something)
{
this.someService.DoSomethingForUser(something);
return View();
}
And then we have
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IUserService userService;
private readonly IApiClient apiClient;
public SomeService(IUserService userService, IApiClient apiClient)
{
this.userService = userService;
this.apiClient = apiClient;
}
public void DoSomethingForUser(string something)
{
this.apiClient.DoSomethingForUser(userService.SessionToken, something);
}
}
The IUserService would have an IHttpContextAccessor injected:
public class UserService : IUserService
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor;
public UserService(IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor)
{
this.httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
}
public string SessionToken => httpContextAccessor.HttpContext.SessionToken;
}
The benefits of this pattern are I think pretty clear. Especially with many services, it keeps the code "cleaner" and you end up with less boilerplate code to pass a token around.
Still, I don't like it. To me the downsides of this pattern are more important than its benefit:
I like that passing the token in the methods is concise. It is clear that the service needs some sort of authentication token for it to function. I'm not sure if you can call it a side effect but the fact that a session token is magically injected three layers deep is impossible to tell just by reading the code
Unit testing is a bit more tedious if you have to Mock the IUserService
You run into problems when calling this in another thread, e.g. calling SomeService from another thread. Although these problems can be mitigated by injecting another concrete type of IUserService which gets the token from some place else, it feels like a chore.
To me it strongly feels like an anti pattern but apart from the arguments above it is mostly a feeling. There was a lot of discussion and not everybody was convinced that it was a bad idea. Therefor, my question is, is it an anti pattern or is it perfectly valid? What are some strong arguments for and against it, hopefully so there can be not much debate that this pattern is indeed, either perfectly valid or something to avoid.

I would say the main point is to enable your desired separation of concerns. I think it is a good question if expressed in those terms. As Kit says, different people may prefer different solutions.
REQUEST SCOPED OBJECTS
These occur quite naturally in APIs. Consider the following example, where a UI calls an Orders API, then the Orders API forwards the JWT to an upstream Billing API. A unique Request ID is also sent, in case the flow experiences a temporary problem. If the flow is retried, the Request ID can be used by APIs to prevent data duplication. Yet business logic should not need to know about either the Request ID or the JWT.
BUSINESS LOGIC CLASS DESIGN
I would start by designing my logic classes with my desired inputs, then work out the DI later. In my example the OrderService class might use claims to get the user identity and also for authorization. But I would not want it to know about HTTP level concerns:
public class OrderService
{
private readonly IBillingApiClient billingClient;
public OrderService(IBillingApiClient billingClient, ClaimsPrincipal user)
{
this.billingClient = billingClient;
}
public async void CreateOrder(OrderInput data)
{
this.Authorize();
var order = this.CreateOrder(data);
await this.billingClient.CreateInvoice(order);
}
}
DI SETUP
To enable my preferred business logic, I would write a little DI plumbing, so that I could inject request scoped dependencies in my preferred way. First, when the app starts, I would create a small middleware class. This will run early in the HTTP request pipeline:
private void ConfigureApiMiddleware(IApplicationBuilder api)
{
api.UseMiddleware<ClientContextMiddleware>();
}
In the middleware class I would then create a ClientContext object from runtime data. The OrderService class will run later, after next() is called:
public class ClientContextMiddleware
{
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
var jwt = readJwt(context.Request);
var requestId = readRequestId(context.Request);
var holder = context.RequestServices.GetService<ClientContextHolder>();
holder.ClientContext = new ClientContext(jwt, requestIO);
await this.next(context);
}
}
In my DI composition at application startup I would express that the API client should be created when it is first referenced. In the HTTP request pipeline, the OrderService request scoped object will be constructed after the middleware has run. The below lambda will then be invoked:
private void RegisterDependencies(IServiceCollection services)
{
this.services.AddScoped<IApiClient>(
ctx =>
{
var holder = ctx.GetService<ClientContextHolder>();
return new ApiClient(holder.context);
});
this.services.AddScoped<ClientContextHolder>();
}
The holder object is just due to a technology limitation. The MS stack does not allow you to create new request scoped injectable objects at runtime, so you have to update an existing one. In a previous .NET tech stack, the concept of child container per request was made available to developers, so the holder object was not needed.
ASYNC AWAIT
Request scoped objects are stored against the HTTP request object, which is the correct behaviour when using async await. The current thread ID may switch, eg from 4 to 6 after the call to the Billing API.
If the OrderService class has a transient scope, it could get recreated when the flow resumes on thread 6. If this is the case, then resolution will continue to work.
SUMMARY
Designing inputs first, then writing some support code if needed is a good approach I think, and it is also useful to know the DI techniques. Personally I think natural request scoped objects that need to be created at runtime should be usable in DI. Some people may prefer a different approach though.

See in dotnet the area that I am an expert is not an anti standard on the contrary it is the model that many adopt but it is not a model that I would follow for the following reasons
it is not clear where is the token for those who read and use it being an anti clean code
you load important information in a place that is frequently accessed by the framework in the case of .netCore
your classes will reference a large property carrying a lot of unnecessary information when you could have created a more clean model that costs less memory and allocation time, I'm saying this because the HttpAcessor carries all the information relevant to your request
As I would take care of readability (clean code) and improve my performance
I would make a middleware or filter in my flow mvc where I would do the authentication part and create a class like:
public class TokenAuthenciationValues
{
public string TokenClient { get; set; }
public string TokenValue { get; set; }
}
Of course my method is an example but in my middleware I would implement it by loading its token values ​​after calling the necessary apis (of course this model needs an interface and it needs to be configured as .AddScoped() in the case of .net)
That way I would use it in my methods only instantiating my ITokenAuthenciationValues ​​in the constructor and I would have clear and clean information loaded in memory during the entire request
If it is necessary in the middle of the request to change the token any class can access it and change its value
I would have less memory allocated unused in my classes since the IHttpAcessor contract the ITokenAuthenciationValues ​​only has relevant information
Hope this helps

Finding caller method from a Spring service

Summarize
Goal
I have an application that is written in Java using the Spring framework. There is a service that is being used as the handler for grabbing and releasing locks in the database (InnoDB). My goal is to be able to log the grabbing and releasing of the locks to create a lock history. For each lock interaction, I would like to know not only the name of the lock involved, but also where this request is coming from in the code (if possible, class name, method name, and line number).
My expected database entry will look something like this:
id
lock_name
clazz
method
line
lock_date
unlock_date
unlock_type
0
tb_member
MemberTools
createMember
123
2021-12-23 10:16:00
2021-12-23 10:16:01
COMMIT
1
tb_member
MemberTools
editMember
234
2021-12-23 10:16:01
2021-12-23 10:16:02
COMMIT
I would like to know if there is an easy way to obtain this given that I am using the Spring framework.
Describe
So far, I have tried two things:
Forcing the caller to pass a reference to itself or its current StackTraceElement (using Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace()[1]). This is not only extremely repetitive, but it also is prone to human error, as a developer might not realize that they need to pass in some reference to themselves.
Inside of the lock service, use the getStackTrace method and walk through the elements to find the "correct" one. This is made very hard by Spring and the fact that before a call actually reaches the inside of a class with the #Service annotation, the call stack is muddled by numbers of calls between proxies and generated classes and such. Unless there is a deterministic way to find the number of calls in between the Service and the caller, then this doesn't seem like a good way either.
I have referenced this stack overflow question while working, but these do not take into account the usage of the Spring framework.
Show
A reproducible example will look something like this. First, the structure:
root\
LockService.java
getLock()
MemberTools.java
createMember()
LockService.java:
#Service
public class LockService {
#Transactional
public Lock getLock(String key) {
Lock searchLock = new Lock();
searchLock.setKey(key);
lockMapper.getLock(searchLock);
LockHistory lockHistory = new LockHistory();
// Fill out lockHistory object...
lockMapper.markAsLocked(lockHistory);
attachTransactionCompletedListener(lockHistory);
}
private void attachTransactionCompletedListener(LockHistory lockHistory) {
/* Attach a listener onto the current spring transaction so that we
* can update the database entry when the transaction finishes and
* the lock is released.
*/
}
}
MemberTools.java:
public class MemberTools {
#Autowired
LockService lockService;
#Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW)
public void createMember() {
lockService.getLock("tb_member");
/* Do create member stuff...
* When this returns, the lock will be released
* (either from COMMIT, ROLLBACK, or UNKNOWN Spring error)
*/
}
}
By the time the getLock() method is reached, the stack trace is muddled with many calls that Spring inserts (proxies, reflections, etc.). Putting a breakpoint in this function and examining Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace() will show this.

Concept of promises in Java

Is there a concept of using promises in java (just like ut is used in JavaScript) instead of using nested callbacks ?
If so, is there an example of how the callback is implemented in java and handlers are chained ?

Yep! Java 8 calls it CompletableFuture. It lets you implement stuff like this.
class MyCompletableFuture<T> extends CompletableFuture<T> {
static final Executor myExecutor = ...;
public MyCompletableFuture() { }
public <U> CompletableFuture<U> newIncompleteFuture() {
return new MyCompletableFuture<U>();
}
public Executor defaultExecutor() {
return myExecutor;
}
public void obtrudeValue(T value) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
public void obtrudeException(Throwable ex) {
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
The basic design is a semi-fluent API in which you can arrange:
(sequential or async)
(functions or actions)
triggered on completion of
i) ("then") ,or ii) ("andThen" and "orThen")
others. As in:
MyCompletableFuture<String> f = ...; g = ...
f.then((s -> aStringFunction(s)).thenAsync(s -> ...);
or
f.andThen(g, (s, t) -> combineStrings).or(CompletableFuture.async(()->...)....

UPDATE 7/20/17
I wanted to edit that there is also a Library called "ReactFX" which is supposed to be JavaFX as a reactive framework. There are many Reactive Java libraries from what I've seen, and since Play is based on the Reactive principal, I would assume that these Reactive libraries follow that same principal of non-blocking i/o, async calls from server to client and back while having communication be send by either end.
These libraries seem to be made for the client side of things, but there might be a Server reactive library as well, but I would assume that it would be wiser to use Play! with one of these client side reactive libraries.
You can take a look at https://www.playframework.com/
which implements this functionality here
https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.2.0/api/java/play/libs/F.Promise.html
Additonal reading https://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.5.x/JavaAsync
Creating non-blocking actions
Because of the way Play works, action code must be as fast as possible, i.e., non-blocking. So what should we return from our action if we are not yet able to compute the result? We should return the promise of a result!
Java 8 provides a generic promise API called CompletionStage. A CompletionStage<Result> will eventually be redeemed with a value of type Result. By using a CompletionStage<Result> instead of a normal Result, we are able to return from our action quickly without blocking anything. Play will then serve the result as soon as the promise is redeemed.
The web client will be blocked while waiting for the response, but nothing will be blocked on the server, and server resources can be used to serve other clients.
How to create a CompletionStage
To create a CompletionStage<Result> we need another promise first: the promise that will give us the actual value we need to compute the result:
CompletionStage<Double> promiseOfPIValue = computePIAsynchronously();
CompletionStage<Result> promiseOfResult = promiseOfPIValue.thenApply(pi ->
ok("PI value computed: " + pi)
);
Play asynchronous API methods give you a CompletionStage. This is the case when you are calling an external web service using the play.libs.WS API, or if you are using Akka to schedule asynchronous tasks or to communicate with Actors using play.libs.Akka.
A simple way to execute a block of code asynchronously and to get a CompletionStage is to use the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync() helper:
CompletionStage<Integer> promiseOfInt = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> intensiveComputation());
Note: It’s important to understand which thread code runs on which promises. Here, the intensive computation will just be run on another thread.
You can’t magically turn synchronous IO into asynchronous by wrapping it in a CompletionStage. If you can’t change the application’s architecture to avoid blocking operations, at some point that operation will have to be executed, and that thread is going to block. So in addition to enclosing the operation in a CompletionStage, it’s necessary to configure it to run in a separate execution context that has been configured with enough threads to deal with the expected concurrency. See Understanding Play thread pools for more information.
It can also be helpful to use Actors for blocking operations. Actors provide a clean model for handling timeouts and failures, setting up blocking execution contexts, and managing any state that may be associated with the service. Also Actors provide patterns like ScatterGatherFirstCompletedRouter to address simultaneous cache and database requests and allow remote execution on a cluster of backend servers. But an Actor may be overkill depending on what you need.
Async results
We have been returning Result up until now. To send an asynchronous result our action needs to return a CompletionStage<Result>:
public CompletionStage<Result> index() {
return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> intensiveComputation())
.thenApply(i -> ok("Got result: " + i));
}
Actions are asynchronous by default
Play actions are asynchronous by default. For instance, in the controller code below, the returned Result is internally enclosed in a promise:
public Result index() {
return ok("Got request " + request() + "!");
}
Note: Whether the action code returns a Result or a CompletionStage<Result>, both kinds of returned object are handled internally in the same way. There is a single kind of Action, which is asynchronous, and not two kinds (a synchronous one and an asynchronous one). Returning a CompletionStage is a technique for writing non-blocking code.
Some info on CompletionStage
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CompletionStage.html
which is a subclass of the class mentioned in #Debosmit Ray's answer called CompletableFuture
This Youtube Video by LinkedIn dev Mr. Brikman explains a bit about Promises in
https://youtu.be/8z3h4Uv9YbE?t=15m46s
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b1XLka0UIw
I believe the first video gives an example of a promise, the second video might also give some good info, I don't really recall which video had what content.
Either way the information here is very good, and worth looking into.
I personally do not use Play, but I have been looking at it for a long, long time, as it does a lot of really good stuff.

If you want to do Promise even before Java7, "java-promise" may be useful. (Of course it works with Java8)
You can easily control asynchronous operations like JavaScript's Promise.
https://github.com/riversun/java-promise
example
import org.riversun.promise.Promise;
public class Example {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Promise.resolve("foo")
.then(new Promise((action, data) -> {
new Thread(() -> {
String newData = data + "bar";
action.resolve(newData);
}).start();
}))
.then(new Promise((action, data) -> {
System.out.println(data);
action.resolve();
}))
.start();
System.out.println("Promise in Java");
}
}
result:
Promise in Java
foobar

Storing and loading configuration for REST server avoding global state (i.e. singleton vs. context vs. dependency injection)

I am developing an architecture in Java using tomcat and I have come across a situation that I believe is very generic and yet, after reading several questions/answers in StackOverflow, I couldn't find a definitive answer. My architecture has a REST API (running on tomcat) that receives one or more files and their associated metadata and writes them to storage. The configuration of the storage layer has a 1-1 relationship with the REST API server, and for that reason the intuitive approach is to write a Singleton to hold that configuration.
Obviously I am aware that Singletons bring testability problems due to global state and the hardship of mocking Singletons. I also thought of using the Context pattern, but I am not convinced that the Context pattern applies in this case and I worry that I will end up coding using the "Context anti-pattern" instead.
Let me give you some more background on what I am writing. The architecture is comprised of the following components:
Clients that send requests to the REST API uploading or retrieving "preservation objects", or simply put, POs (files + metadata) in JSON or XML format.
The high level REST API that receives requests from clients and stores data in a storage layer.
A storage layer that may contain a combination of OpenStack Swift containers, tape libraries and file systems. Each of these "storage containers" (I'm calling file systems containers for simplicity) is called an endpoint in my architecture. The storage layer obviously does not reside on the same server where the REST API is.
The configuration of endpoints is done through the REST API (e.g. POST /configEndpoint), so that an administrative user can register new endpoints, edit or remove existing endpoints through HTTP calls. Whilst I have only implemented the architecture using an OpenStack Swift endpoint, I anticipate that the information for each endpoint contains at least an IP address, some form of authentication information and a driver name, e.g. "the Swift driver", "the LTFS driver", etc. (so that when new storage technologies arrive they can be easily integrated to my architecture as long as someone writes a driver for it).
My problem is: how do I store and load configuration in an testable, reusable and elegant way? I won't even consider passing a configuration object to all the various methods that implement the REST API calls.
A few examples of the REST API calls and where the configuration comes into play:
// Retrieve a preservation object metadata (PO)
#GET
#Path("container/{containername}/{po}")
#Produces({ MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON, MediaType.APPLICATION_XML })
public PreservationObjectInformation getPOMetadata(#PathParam("containername") String containerName, #PathParam("po") String poUUID) {
// STEP 1 - LOAD THE CONFIGURATION
// One of the following options:
// StorageContext.loadContext(containerName);
// Configuration.getInstance(containerName);
// Pass a configuration object as an argument of the getPOMetadata() method?
// Some sort of dependency injection
// STEP 2 - RETRIEVE THE METADATA FROM THE STORAGE
// Call the driver depending on the endpoint (JClouds if Swift, Java IO stream if file system, etc.)
// Pass poUUID as parameter
// STEP 3 - CONVERT JSON/XML TO OBJECT
// Unmarshall the file in JSON format
PreservationObjectInformation poi = unmarshall(data);
return poi;
}
// Delete a PO
#DELETE
#Path("container/{containername}/{po}")
public Response deletePO(#PathParam("containername") String containerName, #PathParam("po") String poName) throws IOException, URISyntaxException {
// STEP 1 - LOAD THE CONFIGURATION
// One of the following options:
// StorageContext.loadContext(containerName); // Context
// Configuration.getInstance(containerName); // Singleton
// Pass a configuration object as an argument of the getPOMetadata() method?
// Some sort of dependency injection
// STEP 2 - CONNECT TO THE STORAGE ENDPOINT
// Call the driver depending on the endpoint (JClouds if Swift, Java IO stream if file system, etc.)
// STEP 3 - DELETE THE FILE
return Response.ok().build();
}
// Submit a PO and its metadata
#POST
#Consumes(MediaType.MULTIPART_FORM_DATA)
#Path("container/{containername}/{po}")
public Response submitPO(#PathParam("containername") String container, #PathParam("po") String poName, #FormDataParam("objectName") String objectName,
#FormDataParam("inputstream") InputStream inputStream) throws IOException, URISyntaxException {
// STEP 1 - LOAD THE CONFIGURATION
// One of the following options:
// StorageContext.loadContext(containerName);
// Configuration.getInstance(containerName);
// Pass a configuration object as an argument of the getPOMetadata() method?
// Some sort of dependency injection
// STEP 2 - WRITE THE DATA AND METADATA TO STORAGE
// Call the driver depending on the endpoint (JClouds if Swift, Java IO stream if file system, etc.)
return Response.created(new URI("container/" + container + "/" + poName))
.build();
}
** UPDATE #1 - My implementation based on #mawalker's comment **
Find below my implementation using the proposed answer. A factory creates concrete strategy objects that implement lower-level storage actions. The context object (which is passed back and forth by the middleware) contains an object of the abstract type (in this case, an interface) StorageContainerStrategy (its implementation will depend on the type of storage in each particular case at runtime).
public interface StorageContainerStrategy {
public void write();
public void read();
// other methods here
}
public class Context {
public StorageContainerStrategy strategy;
// other context information here...
}
public class StrategyFactory {
public static StorageContainerStrategy createStorageContainerStrategy(Container c) {
if(c.getEndpoint().isSwift())
return new SwiftStrategy();
else if(c.getEndpoint().isLtfs())
return new LtfsStrategy();
// etc.
return null;
}
}
public class SwiftStrategy implements StorageContainerStrategy {
#Override
public void write() {
// OpenStack Swift specific code
}
#Override
public void read() {
// OpenStack Swift specific code
}
}
public class LtfsStrategy implements StorageContainerStrategy {
#Override
public void write() {
// LTFS specific code
}
#Override
public void read() {
// LTFS specific code
}
}

Here is the paper Doug Schmidt (in full disclosure my current PhD Advisor) wrote on the Context Object Pattern.
https://www.dre.vanderbilt.edu/~schmidt/PDF/Context-Object-Pattern.pdf
As dbugger stated, building a factory into your api classes that returns the appropriate 'configuration' object is a pretty clean way of doing this. But if you know the 'context'(yes, overloaded usage) of the paper being discussed, it mainly for use in middleware. Where there are multiple layers of context changes. And note that under the 'implementation' section it recommends use of the Strategy Pattern for how to add each layer's 'context information' to the 'context object'.
I would recommend a similar approach. Each 'storage container' would have a different strategy associated with it. Each "driver" therefore has its own strategy impl. class. That strategy would be obtained from a factory, and then used as needed. (How to design your Strats... best way (I'm guessing) would be to make your 'driver strat' be generic for each driver type, and then configure it appropriately as new resources arise/the strat object is assigned)
But as far as I can tell right now(unless I'm reading your question wrong), this would only have 2 'layers' where the 'context object' would be aware of, the 'rest server(s)' and the 'storage endpoints'. If I'm mistaken then so be it... but with only 2 layers, You can just use 'strategy pattern' in the same way you were thinking 'context pattern', and avoid the issue of singletons/Context 'anti-pattern'. (You 'could' have a context object, which contains the strategy for which driver to use, and then a 'configuration' for that driver... that wouldn't be insane, and might fit well with your dynamic HTTP configuration.)
The Strategy(s) Factory Class doesn't 'have to' be singleton/have static factory methods either. I've made factories that are objects before just fine, even with D.I. for testing. There is always trade-offs to different approaches, but I've found better testing to be worth it in almost all cases I've ran into.

Ashynchronous Multithreaded

I have a centralized socket class which is responsible for sending and retrieving data. I have 2 classes:
one which listens to the input stream and
the other one which takes care of writing to it.
Listening running on an infinite loop and then process the messages. For synchronous i block the read and reset these values once i receive the response from the server.
Now i am stuck with asycnhronous. I have 3 methods in my service.
getSomething
readSomething
saySomething.
In my getSomething i want to implement async functionality based on the boolean flag provided. When my app starts i also start both of my threads and if i send concurrent request.
For example readSomething first and then getSomething then i get the return value for readSomething in getSomething which is not what i desire and i can see in the logs that the output for getSomething comes after a while.
It looks like the Future object requires to submit a new task which will run in it's own thread but the way i have design this app, i just can't create a new thread. Can anyone give me insights on how should i handle this asycnhronous like a flow chart etc ?.

If you're doing work Asynchronously, that means that other part of the application does not care when the async work is done.
What you'll normally want to do is notify the other part, when the async work is done. For this, you'll want to use the "Observer Pattern" (the article includes flow-charts).
The basic idea is, that your app starts the async work and is notified, when the work is done. That way, you can loosely couple two parts of the application. A quick example:
/**
* The observer
*/
public interface AsyncWorkDoneListener{
/**
* This method will be called when the async-thread is
* done.
*/
public void done(Object unit);
}
/**
* The worker (which does the asyc-work on another thread).
*/
public class AsyncWorker{
private AsyncWorkDoneListener listener;
/**
* Set (you might want to maintain a list here) the current
* listener for this "AsyncWorker".
*/
public void setListener(AsyncWorkDoneListener listener){
this.listener = listener;
}
/**
* Will do the async-work
*/
public void doWork(){
// Do the work in another thread...
// When done, notify the registered listener with the
// result of the async work:
this.listener.done(the_object_containing_the_result);
}
}
/**
* The application
*/
public class App implements AsyncWorkDoneListener{
public void someMethod(){
// Work on something asynchronously:
mAsyncWorker.setListener(this);
mAsyncWorker.doWork();
}
#Override
public void done(Object unit){
// The asyc work has finished, do something with
// the result in "unit".
}
}

A couple of insights:
you need dataflow, not flow charts
if you cannot create new thread for each task, you can use fixed-sized thread pool created by java.util.concurrent.Executors.newFixedThreadPool()
you cannot use Future.get() from within a task running in a threadpool, or thread starvation deadlock may occur.
your description of the problem is unclear: too many undeclared notions. "reset these values" - what values? "3 methods in my service" - is it server side or client-side? "boolean flag provided" - do we need to understand who provided that flag and what does it mean?
Please provide a dataflow representation of the program you need to implement in order we could help you.