We Keep Coding

Replacing a scheduled task with Spring Events

In my Spring Boot app, customers can submit files. Each customer's files are merged together by a scheduled task that runs every minute. The fact that the merging is performed by a scheduler has a number of drawbacks, e.g. it's difficult to write end-to-end tests, because in the test you have to wait for the scheduler to run before retrieving the result of the merge.
Because of this, I would like to use an event-based approach instead, i.e.
Customer submits a file
An event is published that contains this customer's ID
The merging service listens for these events and performs a merge operation for the customer in the event object
This would have the advantage of triggering the merge operation immediately after there is a file available to merge.
However, there are a number of problems with this approach which I would like some help with
Concurrency
The merging is a reasonably expensive operation. It can take up to 20 seconds, depending on how many files are involved. Therefore the merging will have to happen asynchronously, i.e. not as part of the same thread which publishes the merge event. Also, I don't want to perform multiple merge operations for the same customer concurrently in order to avoid the following scenario
Customer1 saves file2 triggering a merge operation2 for file1 and file2
A very short time later, customer1 saves file3 triggering merge operation3 for file1, file2, and file3
Merge operation3 completes saving merge-file3
Merge operation2 completes overwriting merge-file3 with merge-file2
To avoid this, I plan to process merge operations for the same customer in sequence using locks in the event listener, e.g.
#Component
public class MergeEventListener implements ApplicationListener<MergeEvent> {
private final ConcurrentMap<String, Lock> customerLocks = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(MergeEvent event) {
var customerId = event.getCustomerId();
var customerLock = customerLocks.computeIfAbsent(customerId, key -> new ReentrantLock());
customerLock.lock();
mergeFileForCustomer(customerId);
customerLock.unlock();
}
private void mergeFileForCustomer(String customerId) {
// implementation omitted
}
}
Fault-Tolerance
How do I recover if for example the application shuts down in the middle of a merge operation or an error occurs during a merge operation?
One of the advantages of the scheduled approach is that it contains an implicit retry mechanism, because every time it runs it looks for customers with unmerged files.
Summary
I suspect my proposed solution may be re-implementing (badly) an existing technology for this type of problem, e.g. JMS. Is my proposed solution advisable, or should I use something like JMS instead? The application is hosted on Azure, so I can use any services it offers.
If my solution is advisable, how should I deal with fault-tolerance?

Regarding the concurrency part, I think the approach with locks would work fine, if the number of files submitted per customer (on a given timeframe) is small enough.
You can eventually monitor over time the number of threads waiting for the lock to see if there is a lot of contention. If there is, then maybe you can accumulate a number of merge events (on a specific timeframe) and then run a parallel merge operation, which in fact leads to a solution similar to the one with the scheduler.
In terms of fault-tolerance, an approach based on a message queue would work (haven't worked with JMS but I see it's an implementation of a message-queue).
I would go with a cloud-based message queue (SQS for example) simply because of reliability purposes. The approach would be:
Push merge events into the queue
The merging service scans one event at a time and it starts the merge job
When the merge job is finished, the message is removed from the queue
That way, if something goes wrong during the merge process, the message stays in the queue and it will be read again when the app is restarted.

My thoughts around this matter after some considerations.
I restricted possible solutions to what's available from Azure managed services, according to specifications from OP.
Azure Blob Storage Function Trigger
Because this issue is about storing files, let's start with exploring Blob Storage with trigger function that fires on file creation. According to doc, Azure functions can run up to 230 seconds, and will have a default retry count of 5.
But, this solution will require that files from a single customer arrives in a manner that will not cause concurrency issues, hence let's leave this solution for now.
Azure Queue Storage
Does not guarantee first-in-first-out (FIFO) ordered delivery, hence it does not meet the requirements.
Storage queues and Service Bus queues - compared and contrasted: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/service-bus-azure-and-service-bus-queues-compared-contrasted
Azure Service Bus
Azure Service Bus is a FIFO queue, and seems to meet the requirements.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/service-bus-azure-and-service-bus-queues-compared-contrasted#compare-storage-queues-and-service-bus-queues
From doc above, we see that large files are not suited as message payload. To solve this, files may be stored in Azure Blob Storage, and message will contain info where to find the file.
With Azure Service Bus and Azure Blob Storage selected, let's discuss implementation caveats.
Queue Producer
On AWS, the solution for the producer side would have been like this:
Dedicated end-point provides pre-signed URL to customer app
Customer app uploads file to S3
Lambda triggered by S3 object creation inserts message to queue
Unfortunately, Azure doesn't have a pre-signed URL equivalent yet (they have Shared Access Signature which is not equal), hence file uploads must be done through an end-point which in turn stores the file to Azure Blob Storage. When file upload end-point is required, it seems appropriate to let the file upload end-point also be reponsible for inserting messages into queue.
Queue Consumer
Because file merging takes a signicant amount of time (~ 20 secs), it should be possible to scale out the consumer side. With multiple consumers, we'll have to make sure that a single customer is processed by no more than one consumer instance.
This can be solved by using message sessions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/message-sessions
In order to achieve fault tolerance, consumer should use peek-lock (as opposed to receive-and-delete) during file merge and mark message as completed when file merge is completed. When message is marked as completed, consumer may be responsible for
removing superfluous files in Blob Storage.
Possible problems with both existing solution and future solution
If customer A starts uploading a huge file #1 and immediately after that starts uploading a small file #2, file upload of file #2 may be be completed before file #1 and cause an out-of-order situation.
I assume that this is an issue that is solved in existing solution by using some kind of locking mechanism or file name convention.

Spring-boot with Kafka can solve your problem of fault tolerance.
Kafka supports the producer-consumer model. let the customer events posted to Kafka producer.
configure Kafka with replication for not to lose any events.
use consumers that can invoke the Merging service for each event.
once the consumer read the event of customerId and merged then commit the offset.
In case of any failure in between merging the event, offset is not committed so it can be read again when the application started again.
If the merging service can detect the duplicate event with given data then reprocessing the same message should not cause any issue(Kafka promises single delivery of the event). Duplicate event detection is a safety check for an event processed full but failed to commit to Kafka.

First, event-based approach is corrrect for this scenario. You should use external broker for pub-sub event messages.
Attention that, by default, Spring publishing an event is synchronous.
Suppose that, you have 3 services:
App Service
Merge Servcie
CDC Service (change data capture)
Broker Service (Kafka, RabbitMQ,...)
Main flow base on "Outbox Pattern":
App Service save event message to Outbox message table
CDC Service watching outbox table and publish event message from Outbox table to Broker Servie
Merge Service subcribe to Broker Server and receiving event message (messages is orderly)
Merge Servcie perform merge action
You can use eventuate lib for this flow.
Futher more, you can apply DDD to your architecture. Using Axon framework for CQRS pattern, public domain event and process it.
Refer to:
Outbox pattern: https://microservices.io/patterns/data/transactional-outbox.html

It really sounds like you may do with a Stream or an ETL tool for the job. When you are developing an app, and you have some prioritisation/queuing/batching requirement, it is easy to see how you can build a solution with a Cron + SQL Database, with maybe a queue to decouple doing work from producing work.
This may very well be the easiest thing to build as you have a lot of granularity and control to this approach. If you believe that you can in fact meet your requirements this way fairly quickly with low risk, you can do so.
There are software components which are more tailored to these tasks, but they do have some learning curves, and depend on what PAAS or cloud you may be using. You'll get monitoring, scalability, availability resiliency out-of-the-box. An open source or cloud service will take the burden of management off your hands.
What to use will also depend on what your priority and requirements are. If you want to go the ETL approach which is great at banking up jobs you might want to use something like a Glue t. If you want to want prioritization functionality you may want to use multiple queues, it really depends. You'll also want to monitor with a dashboard to see what wait time you should have for your merge regardless of the approach.

how to process multiple API calls from the same client one by one in a scalable, highly concurrent and fault tolerant system

We have web service APIs to support clients running on ten millions devices. Normally clients call server once a day. That is about 116 clients seen per second. For each client (each with unique ID), it may make several APIs calls concurrently. However, Server can only process those API calls one by one from the same client. Because, those API calls will update the same document of that client in the backend Mongodb database. For example: need to update last seen time and other embedded documents in the document of this client.
One solution I have is to put synchronized block on an "intern" object representing this client's unique ID. That will allow only one request from the same client obtains the lock and be processed at the same time. In addition, requests from other clients can be processed at the same time too. But, this solution requires to turn on load balancer's "stickiness". That means load balancer will route all requests from the same ip address to a specific server within a preset time interval (e.g. 15 minute). I am not sure if this has any impact to the robustness in the whole system design. One thing I can think of is that some clients may make more requests and make the load not balanced (create hotspots).
Solution #1:
Interner<Key> myIdInterner = Interners.newWeakInterner();
public ResponseType1 processApi1(String clientUniqueId, RequestType1 request) {
synchronized(myIdInterner.intern(new Key(clientUniqueId))) {
// code to process request
}
}
public ResponseType2 processApi2(String clientUniqueId, RequestType2 request) {
synchronized(myIdInterner.intern(new Key(clientUniqueId))) {
// code to process request
}
}
You can see my other question for this solution in detail: Should I use Java String Pool for synchronization based on unique customer id?
The second solution I am thinking is to somehow lock the document (Mongodb) of that client (I have not found a good example to do that yet). Then, I don't need to touch load balancer setting. But, I have concerns on this approach as I think the performance (round trips to Mongodb server and busy waiting?) will be much worse compared to solution #1.
Solution #2:
public ResponseType1 processApi1(String clientUniqueId, RequestType1 request) {
try {
obtainDocumentLock(new Key(clientUniqueId));
// code to process request
} finally {
releaseDocumentLock(new Key(clientUniqueId));
}
}
public ResponseType2 processApi2(String clientUniqueId, RequestType2 request) {
try {
obtainDocumentLock(new Key(clientUniqueId));
// code to process request
} finally {
releaseDocumentLock(new Key(clientUniqueId));
}
}
I believe this is very common issue in a scalable and high concurrent system. How do you solve this issue? Is there any other option? What I want to achieve is to be able to process one request at a time for those requests from the same client. Please be noted that just controlling the read/write access to database does not work. The solution need to control the exclusive processing of the whole request.
For example, there are two requests: request #1 and request #2. Request #1 read the document of the client, update one field of a sub-document #5, and save the whole document back. Request #2 read the same document, update one field of sub-document #8, and save the whole document back. At this moment, we will get an OptimisticLockingFailureException because we use #Version annotation from spring-data-mongodb to detect version conflict. So, it is imperative to process only one request from the same client at any time.
P.S. Any suggestion in selecting solution #1 (lock on single process/instance with load balancer stickiness turned on) or solution #2 (distributed lock) for a scalable, and high concurrent system design. The goal is to support tens of millions clients with concurrently hundreds of clients access the system per second.

In your solution, you are doing a lock split based on customer id so two customers can process the service same time. The only problem is the sticky session. One solution can be to use distributed lock so you can dispatch any request to any server and the server gets the lock process. Only one consideration is it involves remote calls. We are using hazelcast/Ignite and it is working very well for average number of nodes.
Hazelcast

Why not just create a processing queue in Mongodb whereby you submit client request documents, and then another server process that consumes them, produces a resulting document, that the client waits for... synchronize the data with clientId, and avoid that activity in the API submission step. The 2nd part of the client submission activity (when finished) just polls Mongodb for consumed records looking for their API / ClientID and some job tag. That way, you can scale out the API submission, and separately the API consumption activities on separate servers etc.

One obvious approach is simply to implement the full optimistic locking algorithm on your end.
That is, you get sometimes get OptimisticLockingFailureException when there are concurrent modifications, but that's fine: just re-read the document and start the modification that failed over again. You'll get the same effect as if you had used locking. Essentially you are leveraging the concurrency control already built-in to MongoDB. This also has the advantage of getting several transactions go through from the same client if they don't conflict (e.g., one is a read, or they write to different documents), potentially increasing the concurrency of your system. On other hand, you have to implement the re-try logic.
If you do want to lock on a per-client basis (or per-document or whatever else) and your server is a single process (which is implied by your suggested approach) you just need a lock manager that works on arbitrary String keys, which has several reasonable solutions including the Interner one your mentioned.

How to send requests parallel to asynchronous services and collect the responses in a Java EE application?

I develop an application that at some point starts to aggregate an infomation from a bunch of services. Some of that services are called via SOAP interfaces synchronously and some of them works asynchronosly - I have to send a request to JMS queue Q1 and get an answer to Q2 at some point.
The problem is that the app sends requests in one thread and the responses a processed using MDBs (Message-Driven Bean). The solution from the top of my head is to store already aggregated responses in some shared container (like ConcurrentHashMap) with some correlationId. So when an MDB gets a response it looks through the shared container and adds response to the corresponding record.
The app runs on WildFly AS in domain HA mode.
Are there some problems that I can run into with this approach? Like the container will be instantiated one for each node in cluster.
Or I can accidently process so many requests that I will store so many responses that I will get OutOfMemoryError?
What are the best approaches for this kind of problems?

Let me answer your questions:
A response to a JMS service call could arrive anytime (quite soon : the destination server down, the operator take a rest, etc). So you should store the requests in a database during the data aggregation.
Performance issues always could happen when you serve many requests parallel. And if you have asynchronous answers you can store many-many hashes for a long time (or with SFSB activate/passivate) till the last answer arrives. The first answer (partly) solve this problem as well, because it stores most of the data in the db and takes just the current ones in the memory. And more robust. The persistent data live survive a server crash/shutdown.
When you need the data, create a db entry for all and send out the requests with its PK in the header. When an answer arrives, its header contains the same PK for the identification. The MDBs are best way to receive them. But use them just to receive the messages. Process its contents by EJBs. Delegate the message contents synchronously to the EJB(s) and acknowledge them according to the EJB answers. At the very end of the EJB processing fetch the IDs of the unprocessed requests belong to the current aggregation. If there is no one, (remove the query entries from the db table and) call the appropriate EJB (via MDB?) to proceed the work with the fulfilled data needs.

Constantly Running Service in Java EE

How would you implement a constantly running service in Java EE?
What I'm trying to do:
User1 connects to a service pool; waits for response.
User2 connects to the same service pool; waits for response.
Server performs task (matches users) on all Users in the service pool.
Server returns response to appropriate Users once they have been matched; if User1 matches with User2, User1 receives User2 as a response and User2 receives User1.
I'm not asking how to perform the task (match). I'm asking how to a have this server service run as long as there are Users in the pool?
In Java EE, there seems to be no independently running method support. The only things I can think of are:
Infinite loop on a separate thread
Timer Service
I'm wondering if there is another/better way.

For running a process under the hood you're actually right. Can use infinite loop or Timer Service. Take a look at Quartz as well. You just need to register users in some kind of thread safe collection.
For realtime updates you can't be sure that HTTP request will wait long enough. May just timeout. You need to use WebSockets or CometD to abstract publish/subscribe channel. You should use a Java EE server that accepts asynchronous HTTP requests (i.e. suppports Servlet 3)

You have inded 2 different problems :
you want different sessions to interact with each other
you want the server to send its response once it could match users
For first part, you could put a specialized bean or object in ServletContext in which sessions will register their users and from where they will get matching users. If you want to allow bidirectionnal exchanges from that time, you can use some kind of pair of buffers where one session writes where the other reads. You should also use a SessionListener to unregister a session as soon as it is closed.
For second part, you must be aware that you cannot hope that a HTTP connection will live as long as you need it. Even if neither the server nor the client have a short timeout, you might go through any other network equipement (proxy, router, ...) that can close it without further notice. IMHO the most robust way would be to have a page that automatically refreshes itself via javascript, a HTTP Refresh header or a <meta http-equiv="refresh"> tag.

Solution for Asynchronous Servlets in versions prior to 3.0?

I have a long-running task (report) which would exceed any TCP connection timeouts before it starts returning data. Asynchronous servlets (introducted in Servlets 3.0) are exactly what I need, however I am limited to Servlet v2.4.
Are there any "roll-your-own" solutions? What I'm doing feels hacked - I kick off the task asynchronously in a thread and just return to the client immediately. The client then polls every few seconds (with ajax), and checks for a "ready" status for this task ID (a static list maintains their status and some handles to the objects processed by the thread). Once ready, I inject the output stream into the work object so the thread can write the results back to the client.

You can implement the Reverse ajax technique which means that instead of polling many times to get the response you get the response once the task has finished.
There is a quick solution to implement reverse-ajax technique by using DWR here. But you should maintain the use of the static List. If your background task business logic is complicated you can use an ESB or something more sophisticated.