Libraries the perform time-consuming operations, or network-based operations, often provide a means of running the task asynchronously, so that your code can continue with other things while this operation is performed in the background.

Such functions often allow you to provide a callback which is invoked when the operation has completed. The result of the operation may be supplied directly to the callback, or the callback might be expected to make further calls into the library to detect the result.

Either way, though it is a useful facility, it doesn't work well with code that needs to wait for the result — for this, you need something that can be waited on. Futures are an ideal such mechanism, because they provide a common mechanism for waiting that is abstracted away from the details of this specific library. They also allow the result to be transferred directly to the waiting thread, again abstracting away the details.

So, what do you do if the library you want to use provides a callback facility, and not a future-based wait facility? You wrap the callback in a future.

Promises, promises

The key to wrapping a callback in a future is the promise. A promise is the producer side of a future: you set the value through the promise in order to consume it via the future.

In C++, promises are provided through the std::promise class template; the template parameter specifies the type of the data being transferred, and thus is the same as the template parameter of the std::future that you will eventually be returning to the user. When you call prom.set_value() on some promise prom , then the corresponding future (retrieved by calling prom.get_future() ) will become ready, holding the relevant value.

Promises and futures are not unique to C++; they are available in at least JavaScript, Python, Java and Scala, and pretty much any modern concurrency library for any language will have something that is equivalent. Adapting the examples to your favourite language is left as an exercise for the reader.

Simple callbacks

The most convenient case for us when trying to wrap a function that takes a callback is where the function we are calling takes anything that is callable as the callback. In C++ this might be represented as an instantiation of std::function . e.g.

class request_data; class retrieved_data; void async_retrieve_data( request_data param, std::function<void(retrieved_data)> callback);

What we need to do to wrap this is the following:

Create a promise. Get the future from the promise. Construct a callable object that can hold the promise, and will set the value on the promise when called. Pass that object as the callback. Return the future that we obtained in step 2.

This is the same basic set of steps as we'll be doing in all the examples that follow; it is the details that will differ.

Note: std::function requires that the callable object it wraps is copyable (so that if the std::function object itself is copied, it can copy the wrapped callable object), so we cannot hold the std::promise itself by value, as promises are not copyable.

We can thus write this using a C++ lambda as the callable object:

std::future<retrieved_data> wrapped_retrieve_data(request_data param) { std::shared_ptr<std::promise<retrieved_data>> prom= std::make_shared<std::promise<retrieved_data>>(); std::future<retrieved_data> res=prom->get_future(); async_retrieve_data( param, [prom](retrieved_data result){ prom->set_value(result); }); return res; }

Here, we're using a std::shared_ptr to provide a copyable wrapper for the promise, so that it can be copied into the lambda, and the lambda itself will be copyable. When the copy of the lambda is called, it sets the value on the promise through its copy of the std::shared_ptr , and the future that is returned from wrapped_retrieve_data will become ready .

That's all very well if the function uses something like std::function for the callback. However, in practice that's not often the case. More often you have something that takes a plain function and a parameter to pass to this function; an approach inherited from C. Indeed, many APIs that you might wish to wrap are C APIs.

Plain function callbacks with a user_data parameter

A function that takes a plain function for the callback and a user_data parameter to pass to the function often looks something like this:

void async_retrieve_data( request_param param, void (*callback)(uintptr_t user_data,retrieved_data data), uintptr_t user_data);

The user_data you supply to async_retrieve_data is passed as the first parameter of your callback when the data is ready.

In this case, wrapping out callback is a bit more tricky, as we cannot just pass our lambda directly. Instead, we must create an object, and pass something to identify that object via the user_data parameter. Since our user_data is uintptr_t , it is large enough to hold a pointer, so we can cast the pointer to our object to uintptr_t , and pass it as the user_data . Our callback can then cast it back before using it. This is a common approach when passing C++ objects through C APIs.

The issue is: what object should we pass a pointer to, and how will its lifetime be managed?

One option is to just allocate our std::promise on the heap, and pass the pointer to that:

void wrapped_retrieve_data_callback(uintptr_t user_data,retrieved_data data) { std::unique_ptr<std::promise<retrieved_data>> prom( reinterpret_cast<std::promise<retrieved_data>*>(user_data)); prom->set_value(data); } std::future<retrieved_data> wrapped_retrieve_data(request_data param) { std::unique_ptr<std::promise<retrieved_data>> prom= std::make_unique<std::promise<retrieved_data>>(); std::future<retrieved_data> res=prom->get_future(); async_retrieve_data( param, wrapped_retrieve_data_callback, reinterpret_cast<uintptr_t>(prom->get())); prom.release(); return res; }

Here, we use std::make_unique to construct our promise, and give us a std::unique_ptr pointing to it. We then get the future as before, and call the function we're wrapping, passing in the raw pointer, cast to an integer. We then call release on our pointer, so the object isn't deleted when we return from the function.

In our callback, we then cast the user_data parameter back to a pointer, and construct a new std::unique_ptr object to take ownership of it, and ensure it gets deleted. We can then set the value on our promise as before.

This is a little bit more convoluted than the lamda version from before, but it works in more cases. Often the APIs will take a void* rather than a uintptr_t , in which case you only need a static_cast rather than the scary reinterpret_cast , but the structure is the same.

An alternative to heap-allocating the promise directly is to store it in a global container (e.g. a std::list<std::promise<T>> ), provided that its address can't change. You then need to ensure that it gets destroyed at a suitable point, otherwise you'll end up with a container full of used promises.

If you've only got C++11 futures, then the advantages to wrapping the callback-based API like so is primarily about abstracting away the interface, and providing a means of waiting for the result. However, if your library provides the extended futures from the C++ Concurrency TS then you can benefit from continuations to add additional functions to call when the data is ready, without having to modify the callback.

Summary

Wrapping asynchronous functions that take callbacks with futures provides a nice abstraction boundary to separate the details of the API call from the rest of your code. It is a common pattern in all languages that provide the future/promise abstraction, especially where that abstraction allows for continuations.

If you have any thoughts on this, let me know in the comments below.

Posted by Anthony Williams

[/ threading /] permanent link

Tags: callbacks, async, futures, threading, concurrency

Stumble It! | Submit to Reddit | Submit to DZone

Comment on this post

If you liked this post, why not subscribe to the RSS feed or Follow me on Twitter? You can also subscribe to this blog by email using the form on the left.