Are kanal functions cancel-safe? about kanal HOT 9 CLOSED

Could you please provide a definition of being cancel-safe?

from kanal.

Could you please provide a definition of being cancel-safe?

It's like atomicity: action will be fully performed or not performed at all if I cancel the future. I'm relying on the official tokio's documentation https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/macro.select.html#cancellation-safety

from kanal.

recv is not cancel safe, safety here means there is a small possibility that received data gets dropped in the future drop if in the exact time that future is dropping another sender writes data(it is memory safe, drop safe), it is because there is no cancelation API for futures yet.
we can implement another cancel safe less performant method until then.

from kanal.

Cancelation-safety is the tokio-specific term, but I think this should be noted in the documentation. Tokio is the most popular runtime after all. Should I keep issue open until cancel-safe version is implemented? Will it be?
Thank you for the answer.

from kanal.

Let's keep it open, I'm thinking of short-term and long-term solutions.
It surely should be documented in the right place of the project as the tokio is the most common async runtime.
The main source of the problem is the definition of the Future trait in rust language, it should have something like poll_try_cancel()->Poll<CancelationResult<Self::Output>> and CancelationResult could be:

enum CancelationResult<T>{
    Unimplemented,
    Done,
    Failed(T),
}

from kanal.

Hi @fereidani, thanks for the amazing crate, may I ask about is there any plan to implement kanal's select? IMO, select is a common use case.

from kanal.

@al8n please open a separate issue, we can discuss it there.

from kanal.

recv is not cancel safe, safety here means there is a small possibility that received data gets dropped in the future drop if in the exact time that future is dropping another sender writes data(it is memory safe, drop safe), it is because there is no cancelation API for futures yet.

received data gets dropped in the future drop

@fereidani I think the semantics need to be clarified a bit here. What is "the future drop" in this context? Do you specifically mean: there is a small possibility that data gets dropped if data is sent over a channel at the exact time that the receiver is dropped?

Or perhaps you mean that data could be dropped specifically in the case that the sender is dropped before it has fully finished sending the data because the sending future is dropped?

Either way, thank you for the work on this crate. Really stoked about the benchmarks/performance possibilities here. I would love to adopt this crate for messaging in the data system I am building, which is otherwise entirely tokio channels. I just need to ensure that the data delivery guarantees are well-defined.

In the case of the system I am building, receiver channels will live for the duration of the program, with only a few cases where oneshot pools (my custom implementation) are used to amortize allocation costs.

As long as data is not going to be lost from within a normal use of tokio::select!{..} over long-lived channels, then this seems quite alright.

from kanal.

Hey @thedodd, Just like other Rust polled futures, once you start polling, you need to continue until completion. Dropping midway can leave the future in an uncertain state. For instance, in async Rust when making an HTTP request, dropping the future after polling it once may leave you unaware of the request's result or status. To sum it up, ensure you use .await or poll the future correctly until the result is delivered. I'll close this issue to avoid further confusion, if rust adds a safe poll cancelation method which is unlikely, I will adjust the API to that.

from kanal.