Flink stateful functions : compensating callback to invoked functions on a timeout

[Mazen Ezzeddine <ma...@etu.unice.fr>]

Hi all, 

I am implementing a use case in Flink stateful functions. My specification
highlights that starting from a *stateful function f* a business workflow
(in other words a group of stateful functions f1, f2, … fn are called either
sequentially or in parallel or both ). Stateful function f waits for a
result to be returned to update a local state, it as well starts a timeout
callback i.e. a message to itself. At timeout, f checks if the local state
is updated (it has received a result), if this is the case life is good.

However, if at timeout f discovers that it has not received a result yet, it
has to launch a compensating workflow to undo any changes that /stateful
functions f1, f2, … fn/ might have received.

Does Flink stateful functions framework support such as a design pattern/use
case, or it should be implemented at the application level? What is the
simplest design to achieve such a solution? For instance, how to know what
functions of the workflow stateful functions f1, f2, … fn were affected by
the timedout invocation (where the control flow has been timed out)? How
does Flink sateful functions and the concept of* integrated messaging and
state* facilitate such a pattern?

Thank you.



--
Sent from: http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/

Re: Flink stateful functions : compensating callback to invoked functions on a timeout

[Mazen Ezzeddine <ma...@etu.unice.fr>]

Thank you so much Igal, complex things will appear as I progresses on the
implementation and I will surely follow up with you.

Best regards,



--
Sent from: http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/

Re: Flink stateful functions : compensating callback to invoked functions on a timeout

[Igal Shilman <ig...@ververica.com>]

Hi, Thanks for posting this interesting question, and welcome to StateFun!
:-)

The first thing that I would like to mention is that, if your original
motivation for that scenario is a concern of a transient failures such as:
- did function Y ever received a message sent by function X ?
- did sending a message failed?
- did the target function is there to accept a message sent to it?
- did the order of message got mixed up?
- etc'

Then, StateFun eliminates all of these problems and a whole class of
transient errors that otherwise you would have to deal with by yourself in
your business logic (like retries, backoffs, service discovery etc').

Now if your motivating scenario is not about transient errors but more
about transactional workflows, then as Dawid mentioned you would have to
implement
this in your application logic. I think that the way you have described the
flow should map directly to a coordinating function (per flow instance)
that keeps track of results/timeouts in its internal state.

Here is a sketch:

1. A Flow Coordinator Function - it would be invoked with the input
necessary to kick off a flow. It would start invoking the relevant
functions (as defined by the flow's DAG) and would keep an internal state
indicating
what functions (addresses) were invoked and their completion statues.
When the flow completes successfully the coordinator can safely discard its
state.
In any case that the coordinator decides to abort the flow (an internal
timeout / an external message / etc') it would have to check its internal
state and kick off a compensating workflow (sending a special message to
the already succeed/in progress functions)

2. Each function in the flow has to accept a message from the coordinator,
in turn, and reply with either a success or a failure.

Let me know if you have any followup/clarifying questions,
Good luck!
Igal.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 6:17 PM Dawid Wysakowicz <dw...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am not an expert on Stateful functions, but I doubt there is something
> in particular that would solve you use case. I think you need to
> implement that in the user space.
>
> You will need some way of keeping track of which state changes come from
> which originating event and then have some transactional protocol where
> you could commit or revoke the state on the time out.
>
> I am cc'ing Gordon and Igal as well, who work on the Stateful functions.
> They might have some other ideas or pointers.
>
> Best,
>
> Dawid
>
> On 07/09/2020 08:43, Mazen Ezzeddine wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am implementing a use case in Flink stateful functions. My
> specification
> > highlights that starting from a *stateful function f* a business workflow
> > (in other words a group of stateful functions f1, f2, … fn are called
> either
> > sequentially or in parallel or both ). Stateful function f waits for a
> > result to be returned to update a local state, it as well starts a
> timeout
> > callback i.e. a message to itself. At timeout, f checks if the local
> state
> > is updated (it has received a result), if this is the case life is good.
> >
> > However, if at timeout f discovers that it has not received a result
> yet, it
> > has to launch a compensating workflow to undo any changes that /stateful
> > functions f1, f2, … fn/ might have received.
> >
> > Does Flink stateful functions framework support such as a design
> pattern/use
> > case, or it should be implemented at the application level? What is the
> > simplest design to achieve such a solution? For instance, how to know
> what
> > functions of the workflow stateful functions f1, f2, … fn were affected
> by
> > the timedout invocation (where the control flow has been timed out)? How
> > does Flink sateful functions and the concept of* integrated messaging and
> > state* facilitate such a pattern?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from:
> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

Re: Flink stateful functions : compensating callback to invoked functions on a timeout

[Dawid Wysakowicz <dw...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I am not an expert on Stateful functions, but I doubt there is something
in particular that would solve you use case. I think you need to
implement that in the user space.

You will need some way of keeping track of which state changes come from
which originating event and then have some transactional protocol where
you could commit or revoke the state on the time out.

I am cc'ing Gordon and Igal as well, who work on the Stateful functions.
They might have some other ideas or pointers.

Best,

Dawid

On 07/09/2020 08:43, Mazen Ezzeddine wrote:
> Hi all, 
>
> I am implementing a use case in Flink stateful functions. My specification
> highlights that starting from a *stateful function f* a business workflow
> (in other words a group of stateful functions f1, f2, … fn are called either
> sequentially or in parallel or both ). Stateful function f waits for a
> result to be returned to update a local state, it as well starts a timeout
> callback i.e. a message to itself. At timeout, f checks if the local state
> is updated (it has received a result), if this is the case life is good.
>
> However, if at timeout f discovers that it has not received a result yet, it
> has to launch a compensating workflow to undo any changes that /stateful
> functions f1, f2, … fn/ might have received.
>
> Does Flink stateful functions framework support such as a design pattern/use
> case, or it should be implemented at the application level? What is the
> simplest design to achieve such a solution? For instance, how to know what
> functions of the workflow stateful functions f1, f2, … fn were affected by
> the timedout invocation (where the control flow has been timed out)? How
> does Flink sateful functions and the concept of* integrated messaging and
> state* facilitate such a pattern?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/