flc is a functional formulation of life cycles, sporting ad hoc logging (flc-x/log), exception handling (flc-x/try), asynchronous start (flc-x/future), etc, and with minimal effort the dependency on flc.* can be removed. Through adapters you can mix and match components from stuartsierra/component and weavejester/integrant, this too, ad hoc.
The start and stop sequences are deterministic, predictable, and user specifiable.
(Adapted from James Reeve's presentation on Integrant.)
(ns synopsis
(:require [flc.program :refer [lifecycle]]
[flc.process :refer [process]]
[flc.component :refer [component]]
[flc.core :refer [start! stop!]]
...))
(defn database [{:keys [uri]}]
(lifecycle #(db/connect uri)
db/stop))
(defn handler' [database]
(process (fn [request] (resp/response (query-status database)))))
(defn jetty [{:keys [port]}]
(lifecycle (fn [handler]
(jetty/run-jetty handler {:port port}))
#(.stop %)))
(defn system [config]
{:database (component (database (:database config)))
:handler (component handler' [:database])
:webserver (component (jetty (:webserver config)) [:handler])})
(def processes
(atom nil))
(defn my-start! [config]
(swap! processes (fn [processes]
(stop! processes)
(start! (system config)))))
; (my-start! {:database {:uri "jdbc:sqlite:"}
; :webserver {:port 8080}})
; ; If my-start! is called again then it first stops the system.Do we need another component library? Aren't component and integrant (or mount) enough?
Well, flc does a little more and a little less than component and integrant. flc can be used instead of plumatic/graph even.
The big selling point of flc is that the system is extensible by its open design. flc is not a framework like component and integrant; flc is just a collection of functions that you compose. The extensibility stems from that flc is very functional. Not only are lifecycles expressed using functions (in contrast to protocol methods and multimethods), components are functions (in contrast to records and keywords, respectively) and the "dependency injection" is just function application.
Importantly, you can ad-hoc wrap the components to enrich the life cycles. For instance, with flc you can with a simple function add exception handling during start for all your components or logging of the start and stop functions, without changing the source code of the components. You can even "import" components from component or integrant, and then add logging to them. (See also doc/for-component-users.md and doc/for-integrant-users.md)
If you have a slow-running plumatic/graph, where the computations dominate the function invocation overhead, you can use the drop-in replacement library flc-x/graph and add logging with flc. You can also make the computations run in futures to speed up the computation, while also logging the progress.
Extensions like these can be stacked, and since wrapping e.g. a component component is just another extension, you can take your existing component system, turn it into an flc system (see flc-x.component/system), and then start it as if it was an flc system and make use of all the extensions (see below for a partial list), without any change to your existing component code.
flc is designed to be predictable, so if you want the components to start in a certain order, then flc will respect that order unless it is an illegal order.
component users can look at doc/for-component-users.md, and integrant users can look at doc/for-integrant-users.md. There are also source files in the dev/guide directory.
flc is built on a couple of concepts:
- Process: a map holding a state value and a nullary stop function (that does something with the state).
- Program: a function that returns a process.
- Life cycle: a way of defining a program using a function to start the process and a unary function to stop the process.
- Component: a program that depends indirectly (through names) on other programs.
A sequence of named components can be arranged such that any program that is needed by another program is started before it is needed, and when started its state is passed to any dependents.
The primary user-facing functions in flc are re-exported through flc-x.simple (flc-x/simple) which satisfies the needs for simple systems. The functions in flc make for a flexible core to build more advanced systems with, see Extensions below.
See doc/derivation.md for a detailed background of the design of this library.
flc holds the core functionality, and extra behavior is added ad hoc.
The following (non-inclusive) list of extensions modify how programs work:
- flc-x/log: Add generic logging to all components.
- flc-x/try: One way of handling exceptions.
- flc-x/future: Add asynchronous start to components.
- flc-x/lazy: Make all or some components only start if used as dependencies.
- flc-x/component: Adapter for component.
- flc-x/kw-args: Support for components that use keyword arguments instead of positional arguments.
They can all be combined. For instance, you can log an asynchronously started component defined through component's Lifecycle protocol with graceful handling of exceptions.
Next, the following extensions provide alternatives to start!/stop! and thus replace most of flc.core. All of the above extensions still work.
- flc-x/partial: Start/stop only some components (and their dependencies/dependents).
- flc-x/recurrent: (Experimental!) Allow information to carry over between restarts.
Other:
- flc-x/let-start: Provides an alternative syntax for defining programs where an existing
letstatement which side effects that needs to be cleaned up can be enriched with clean-up behavior.
The basic usage is that programs are functions that use process.
(defn program [... arguments ...]
(process (...state...)
(fn [state] ... clean up state ...)))The state passed to process is the state that will be passed to the stop function.
If the program has configuration that can be partially applied as arguments, or you could add another function that takes the configuration and returns the program.
(defn make-program [config]
(fn [... arguments ...]
(process (...state...)
(fn [state] ... clean up state ...))))In this scenario you might want to use lifecycle, which turns the above function into
(defn make-program [config]
(lifecycle (fn [... arguments ...] ...state...)
(fn [state] ... clean up state ...)))flc does not have an opinion on the return value of the stop function. In fact, it is up to you to optionally exploit the return value. The typical usage is to return nil, but there is no real reason to enforce that. See more under "Advanced usage" below.
No matter how you define programs, a named component consists of a name, a program, and a list of names of other components whose state (once started) will be passed as arguments to the program. For instance, if you have a program bar that needs the state of a component :foo, then you construct [:bar (component bar [:foo])]. I say construct, because (seq {:foo (component foo), :bar (component bar [:foo])}) is [[:foo (component foo)], [:bar (component bar [:foo])]]. So it is convenient to use maps to define a set of components, but it is not necessary to provide a map and it some cases it can be better to not use a map; see flc.core/start! for more details.
There is a fair bit of nesting going on, but you could easily write a function that does this nesting for you, e.g.
(defn flat->nested [& components]
(for [[name f & deps] components]
[name (component f deps)]))and then you could write (flat->nested [:foo foo] [:bar bar :foo]) instead.
These kinds of cosmetics is mostly left to the user. There are many ways to do it, for instance maybe you only care about maps and want to work with formats like {:foo [foo] :bar [bar :foo]} instead. That particular format is supported by flc-x.simple/components, which also optionally can have the dependencies as a collection.
The flc.core/start! function takes a sequence of components. The sequence is first sorted so that any dependencies are started before they are needed. The dependent components then look up the state of the dependencies. For instance,
(start! [[:foo (component foo)]
[:bar (component bar [:foo])]])is like
(let [foo' (foo)
bar' (bar :foo)])However, in contrast to let, you can have components out of order,
(start! [[:bar (component bar [:foo])]
[:foo (component foo)]])but you cannot have shadowing (but see flc.let-like).
Another important aspect is that if the components need not be reordered, then they will not be reordered, so you will have predictability in the start sequence. Below, f will always be executed before g.
(start! [[:f (component f)]
[:g (component g)]])If you instead do
(start! {:f (component f)
:g (component g)})the order depends on the map implementation which isn't defined.
start! returns the sequence of started components in reverse start order, structured as [name process]. The states function transforms that sequence into [name state] and reverses the order, so that it is in start order. If you want to look up states you can use flc.map-like/->map to turn it into a map, or use state-map from flc-x.simple.
The return value of start! can be passed directly to stop!. It runs through all the stop functions in given order, i.e. in reverse start order.
There are many "entry points" to flc. You decide how to construct programs and components. You can even write your on start! and/or stop! function. However, since programs are just functions you can go a long way by wrapping programs, and this is the main mechanism for enriching systems with more capabilities, e.g. asynchronous start or an adapter for stuartsierra/component components.
It is illustrative to look at how flc.core/start! works. The interesting work is actually performed in flc.let-like/run, but flc.let-like has no understanding of processes or how to extract state, so how can that work?
A simplified version of start!, assuming components are encoded using tuples and implemented without flc.let-like and which does not do sorting (but does support shadowing!), could be
(defn start! [components]
(reverse (reduce (fn [processes [name [program deps]]]
(let [args (map (comp :state (into {} processes))
deps)]
(conj processes [name (apply program args)])))
[]
components)))Here :state is explicitly extracted from dependencies. If we want to be more general, we could move :state out as an argument:
(defn start! [f-dep components]
(reverse (reduce (fn [processes [name [program deps]]]
(let [args (map (comp f-dep (into {} processes))
deps)]
(conj processes [name (apply program args)])))
[]
components)))and you can now write e.g. (start! identity components) to get a behavior that is more like a regular let. However, there is another way to get :state out of the reduce and that is in the opposite direction! args is only used by program, so we can change program to pull out :state from all its arguments. We would do that using a function like
(fn [& args]
(apply program (map :state args)))and thus we get
(defn start! [components]
(let [components (for [[name [program deps]] components]
[name [(fn [& args]
(apply program (map :state args)))
deps]])]
(reverse (reduce (fn [processes [name [program deps]]]
(let [args (map (into {} processes)
deps)]
(conj processes [name (apply program args)])))
[]
components))))The let's body can be refactored into a function, let's call it run, and we end up with
(defn start! [components]
(let [components (for [[name [program deps]] components]
[name [(fn [& args]
(apply program (map :state args)))
deps]])]
(run components)))Exactly the same principle is used for asynchronous start, exception handling, etc, except those extension also manipulate the return value.
In flc-x/future there are functions that deal with asynchronous start through futures. Each program in the system is wrapped to do the start in a future, and all dependencies are consequently dereferenced.
Error handling in futures is unpleasant, so this can be composed with the functios in the next section.
In flc-x.try there are functions to deal with exceptions. The whole system should be transformed and each program will then return either {:success state} or {:failure exception}. The exception data contains information about the arguments and dependencies. If a dependency failed the (original) program will not run and a failure will be returned instead, containing information about which dependency failed.
It will thus seem like all components started successfully, but some states might be failures. states->graph can be used to inspect if and how any errors propagated. This can be used to e.g. implement retry logic.
Interestingly, the same approach can be used to do exception-free system stops. The return value from start! can be transformed so that the stop function is turned into a program, with the dependencies inverted. This way, if a stop fails then any dependencies won't be stopped--they will also "fail" to stop. The return value from start! applied to this stop plan will again contain information on which components that were not stopped and which components originally failed to stop.
If you instead just want to log any failed stops and continue to stop even the dependencies, then you can just write your custom stop! which loops over the started components and performs the stop call in a try/catch; no dependencies on flc needed. Or you can wrap all stop functions (or all programs before starting them) to perform the process' stop function in a try, e.g.
(defn perform-in-try [stop]
(fn []
(try
{:success (stop)}
(catch Exception e
{:failure e}))))
(defn safe-stop! [started]
(->> started
(map-like/fmap perform-in-try)
stop!))and then you can inspect the return value to see if anything failed.
If a process does not perform a task by itself (in contrast to e.g. a file watcher), but is merely started to be used by another process, then it can be lazily loaded, see flc-x/lazy. If it is not needed, then it is not started. This can be useful if systems are composed dynamically.
If you have a function that takes a map of both configuration and dependencies, like records in stuartsierra/component, then you can use component from flc-x/kw-args. You can then write
(defn jetty [{:keys [port handler]}]
(flc/process (jetty/run-jetty handler {:port port})
#(.stop %)))
(def components
{:handler ...
:webserver (kw-args/component jetty {:port 8080} {:handler :handler})})You can freely move arguments between configuration and dependency, e.g.
(def components
{:handler ...
:webserver/port [#(process 8080)]
:webserver (kw-component jetty {} {:port :webserver/port, :handler :handler})})There are obvious convenience functions that one would like to have when using flc. You quickly reach for a way to specify constants and side-effect free processes (a.k.a. functions). However, how those should be designed in detail is less obvious. Therefore I have been conservative in including them, and it is easy to write your own. For instance, it would perhaps be tempting to write a macro like (component webserver webserver/options) which produces [:webserver [webserver [:webserver/options]]], with an optional first keyword argument: (component :webserver jetty webserver/options).
There is another good reason for not providing too much out of the box. It encourages the creation of a project specific namespaces that provides the functionality that fits that project. If you ever want to remove flc as a dependency you now have an easy way out.
If you don't use any extensions then flc is mostly useful during development. For a production build you might want to get rid of the dependency on flc.
In that case, if you are only effectively using process, lifecycle, and start!, then you can rewrite the following,
(ns no-flc
(:require [flc.simple :as flc]))
(def foo [x]
(process ...))
(def bar
(lifecycle (fn [foo] ...)
...))
(start! (merge (constants {:x ...})
{:foo (component foo [:x])
:bar (component bar [:foo])}))into
(ns no-flc)
(defn process [state & _]
state)
(def lifecycle [start & _]
start)
(def foo [x] ; Unchanged.
(process ...))
(def bar ; Unchanged.
(lifecycle (fn [foo] ...)
...))
(let [x ...
foo' (foo x)
bar' (bar foo')])and then remove flc from the list of dependencies.
yoyo is similar at the lowest level as it includes the abstraction that I call process. From the documentation:
(:require [yoyo.core :as yc])
(defn open-db-pool! [db-config]
(let [db-pool (start-db-pool! db-config)]
(yc/->component db-pool
(fn []
(stop-db-pool! db-pool)))))yoyo.core/->component looks precisely like flc.process/process*. It then takes a different turn however, using monadic composition and the cats monad library. This leads to a very different experience.
Copyright © 2018-2019 Johan Lodin
Distributed under the Eclipse Public License either version 1.0 or (at your option) any later version.