fire-and-forget | simple PHP library to just fire off an HTTP request | HTTP library

I am working on a p2p application and to make testing simple, I am currently using udp broadcast for the peer discovery in my local network. Each peer binds one udp socket to port 29292 of the ip address of each local network interface (discovered via GetAdaptersInfo) and each socket periodically sends a packet to the broadcast address of its network interface/local address. The sockets are set to allow port reuse (via setsockopt SO_REUSEADDR), which enables me to run multiple peers on the same local machine without any conflicts. In this case there is only a single peer on the entire network though.

This all works perfectly fine (tested with 2 peers on 1 machine and 2 peers on 2 machines) UNTIL a network interface is disconnected. When deactivacting the network adapter of either my wifi or an USB-to-LAN adapter in the windows dialog, or just plugging the usb cable of the adapter, the next call to sendto will fail with return code 10049. It doesn't matter if the other adapter is still connected, or was at the beginning, it will fail. The only thing that doesn't make it fail is deactivating wifi through the fancy win10 dialog through the taskbar, but that isn't really a surprise because that doesn't deactivate or remove the adapter itself.

I initially thought that this makes sense because when the nic is gone, how should the system route the packet. But: The fact that the packet can't reach its target has absolutely nothing to do with the address itsself being invalid (which is what the error means), so I suspect I am missing something here. I was looking for any information I could use to detect this case and distinguish it from simply trying to sendto INADDR_ANY, but I couldn't find anything. I started to log every bit of information which I suspected could have changed, but its all the same on a successfull sendto and the one that crashes (retrieved via getsockopt):

I am using the SelectMany operator in order to project the elements of an observable sequence to tasks, and propagate the results of those tasks. Everything is OK if all operations succeed, but I don't like that in case of an exception all currently running operations are becoming fire-and-forget. I would prefer to wait until all pending operations have completed, and only then be notified for the error (or errors) that have occurred. Here is a minimal example of the behavior that I would like to avoid:

I have a simple Celery task.py running with RabbitMQ message broker and Redis data storage

I am trying to achieve a fire and forget type of effect with webflux, thymeleaf and r2dbc. I have two endpoints, one to add an employee and another to list all employees. I want to simulate a slow database access so I have a thread sleep of several seconds before I call the DB.

Now, the effect I expect to see when I call /add is that my controller returns immediately and the page add is rendered at once. However, I'm not sure how to achieve this. With the current code nap() happens before I can return a Mono. In other words, I'm trying to run a long running job in the background without blocking the controller.

I have the following model:

As per David Karnok's classification 5th generation reactive frameworks are described as below

Reactive-Streams will need extensions to support reactive IO operations in the form of bi-directional sequences (or channels).

operator-fusion by David Karnok's

RSocket definition goes as below

RSocket is an application protocol providing Reactive Streams semantics over an asynchronous, binary boundary. It enables the following symmetric interaction models via async message passing over a single connection: request/response (stream of 1) request/stream (finite/infinite stream of many) fire-and-forget (no response) channel (bi-directional streams)

So Is RSocket a fifth generation reactive framework?

I have a Flux stream. For each element processed I want to have an action triggered which is an asynchronous/non-blocking one. For example, a method returning back a Mono from a db update. I want this action to be done on the doOnNext block. I don't want to affect the Flux, the processing and the back pressure implemented there.

Supposing Mono method to be called is

Suppose a Prism version 8 WPF module has a ViewModel which needs to call on a service. the service implements IService, but there exists a number of implementations of this service. Each implementation is a file (class library), possibly as a IModule (see below).

The user shall be able to configure which file to use either by configuration or by a folder's content.

Obviously(?) I am thus thinking of Module discovery by creating the right type of ModuleCatalog while "bootstrapping" the application and the service could thus be contained in this module. If the call is a void call ("fire-and-forget") I guess I could simply use EventAggregator (implementing the service as an observer), however the call returns a value.

What is the best approach solving this? (I would like to avoid writing my own assembly "discovering/loading" of some kind of a swappable service implementation dll file)

I have a lambda function where, after computation is finished, some calls are made to store metadata on S3 and DynamoDB.

The S3 upload step is the biggest bottleneck in the function, so I'm wondering if there is a way to "fire-and-forget" these calls so I don't have do wait for them before the function returns.

Currently I'm running all the upload calls in parallel using asyncio, but the boto3/S3 put_object call is still a big bottle neck. I tried using asyncio.create_task to run coroutines without waiting for them to finish, but as expected, I get a bunch of Task was destroyed but it is pending! errors and the uploads don't actually go through.

If there was a way to do this, we could save a lot on billing since as I said S3 is the biggest bottleneck. Is this possible or do I have to deal with the S3 upload times?

I have a reactive pipeline to process incoming requests. For each request I need to call a business-relevant function (doSomeRelevantProcessing).

After that is done, I need to notify some external service about what happened. That part of the pipeline should not increase the overall response time. Also, notifying this external system is not business critical: giving a quick response after the main part of the pipeline is finished is more important than making sure the notification is successful.

As far as I learned, the only way to run something in the background without slowing down the overall process is to subscribe to in directly in the pipeline, thus achieving a fire-and-forget mentality.

Is there a good alternative to subscribing inside the flatmap? I am a little worried about what might happen if notifying the external service takes longer than the original processing and a lot of requests are coming in at once. Could this lead to a memory exhaustion or the overall process to block?