2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
.. highlight:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
.. raw:: html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="_static/jquery.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="_static/codesets.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
API: Flows
|
|
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. note:: Before reading this page, you should be familiar with the key concepts of :doc:`key-concepts-flows`.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. contents::
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
An example flow
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Before we discuss the API offered by the flow, let's consider what a standard flow may look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine a flow for agreeing a basic ledger update between Alice and Bob. This flow will have two sides:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* An ``Initiator`` side, that will initiate the request to update the ledger
|
|
|
|
* A ``Responder`` side, that will respond to the request to update the ledger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initiator
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
In our flow, the Initiator flow class will be doing the majority of the work:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 1 - Build the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Choose a notary for the transaction
|
|
|
|
2. Create a transaction builder
|
|
|
|
3. Extract any input states from the vault and add them to the builder
|
|
|
|
4. Create any output states and add them to the builder
|
|
|
|
5. Add any commands, attachments and timestamps to the builder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 2 - Sign the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Sign the transaction builder
|
|
|
|
7. Convert the builder to a signed transaction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 3 - Verify the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Verify the transaction by running its contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 4 - Gather the counterparty's signature*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Send the transaction to the counterparty
|
|
|
|
10. Wait to receive back the counterparty's signature
|
|
|
|
11. Add the counterparty's signature to the transaction
|
|
|
|
12. Verify the transaction's signatures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 5 - Finalize the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Send the transaction to the notary
|
|
|
|
14. Wait to receive back the notarised transaction
|
|
|
|
15. Record the transaction locally
|
|
|
|
16. Store any relevant states in the vault
|
|
|
|
17. Send the transaction to the counterparty for recording
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can visualize the work performed by initiator as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. image:: resources/flow-overview.png
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responder
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
To respond to these actions, the responder takes the following steps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 1 - Sign the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Receive the transaction from the counterparty
|
|
|
|
2. Verify the transaction's existing signatures
|
|
|
|
3. Verify the transaction by running its contracts
|
|
|
|
4. Generate a signature over the transaction
|
|
|
|
5. Send the signature back to the counterparty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Part 2 - Record the transaction*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Receive the notarised transaction from the counterparty
|
|
|
|
7. Record the transaction locally
|
|
|
|
8. Store any relevant states in the vault
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FlowLogic
|
|
|
|
---------
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
In practice, a flow is implemented as one or more communicating ``FlowLogic`` subclasses. The ``FlowLogic``
|
|
|
|
subclass's constructor can take any number of arguments of any type. The generic of ``FlowLogic`` (e.g.
|
|
|
|
``FlowLogic<SignedTransaction>``) indicates the flow's return type.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class Initiator(val arg1: Boolean,
|
|
|
|
val arg2: Int,
|
|
|
|
val counterparty: Party): FlowLogic<SignedTransaction>() { }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class Responder(val otherParty: Party) : FlowLogic<Unit>() { }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: java
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
public static class Initiator extends FlowLogic<SignedTransaction> {
|
|
|
|
private final boolean arg1;
|
|
|
|
private final int arg2;
|
|
|
|
private final Party counterparty;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public Initiator(boolean arg1, int arg2, Party counterparty) {
|
|
|
|
this.arg1 = arg1;
|
|
|
|
this.arg2 = arg2;
|
|
|
|
this.counterparty = counterparty;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public static class Responder extends FlowLogic<Void> { }
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FlowLogic annotations
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
---------------------
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
Any flow from which you want to initiate other flows must be annotated with the ``@InitiatingFlow`` annotation.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, if you wish to start the flow via RPC, you must annotate it with the ``@StartableByRPC`` annotation:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@InitiatingFlow
|
|
|
|
@StartableByRPC
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
class Initiator(): FlowLogic<Unit>() { }
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: java
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@InitiatingFlow
|
|
|
|
@StartableByRPC
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
public static class Initiator extends FlowLogic<Unit> { }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, any flow that responds to a message from another flow must be annotated with the ``@InitiatedBy`` annotation.
|
|
|
|
``@InitiatedBy`` takes the class of the flow it is responding to as its single parameter:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@InitiatedBy(Initiator::class)
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
class Responder(val otherSideSession: FlowSession) : FlowLogic<Unit>() { }
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: java
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@InitiatedBy(Initiator.class)
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
public static class Responder extends FlowLogic<Void> { }
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, any flow that is started by a ``SchedulableState`` must be annotated with the ``@SchedulableFlow``
|
|
|
|
annotation.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Call
|
|
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
Each ``FlowLogic`` subclass must override ``FlowLogic.call()``, which describes the actions it will take as part of
|
|
|
|
the flow. For example, the actions of the initiator's side of the flow would be defined in ``Initiator.call``, and the
|
|
|
|
actions of the responder's side of the flow would be defined in ``Responder.call``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order for nodes to be able to run multiple flows concurrently, and to allow flows to survive node upgrades and
|
|
|
|
restarts, flows need to be checkpointable and serializable to disk. This is achieved by marking ``FlowLogic.call()``,
|
|
|
|
as well as any function invoked from within ``FlowLogic.call()``, with an ``@Suspendable`` annotation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: kotlin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
class Initiator(val counterparty: Party): FlowLogic<Unit>() {
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
|
|
override fun call() { }
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sourcecode:: java
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public static class InitiatorFlow extends FlowLogic<Void> {
|
|
|
|
private final Party counterparty;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
public Initiator(Party counterparty) {
|
|
|
|
this.counterparty = counterparty;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Suspendable
|
|
|
|
@Override
|
|
|
|
public Void call() throws FlowException { }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
ServiceHub
|
|
|
|
----------
|
2017-06-07 15:14:01 +00:00
|
|
|
Within ``FlowLogic.call``, the flow developer has access to the node's ``ServiceHub``, which provides access to the
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
various services the node provides. We will use the ``ServiceHub`` extensively in the examples that follow. You can
|
|
|
|
also see :doc:`api-service-hub` for information about the services the ``ServiceHub`` offers.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common flow tasks
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
There are a number of common tasks that you will need to perform within ``FlowLogic.call`` in order to agree ledger
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
updates. This section details the API for common tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction building
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
2017-08-31 09:09:31 +00:00
|
|
|
The majority of the work performed during a flow will be to build, verify and sign a transaction. This is covered
|
|
|
|
in :doc:`api-transactions`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extracting states from the vault
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
When building a transaction, you'll often need to extract the states you wish to consume from the vault. This is
|
|
|
|
covered in :doc:`api-vault-query`.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retrieving information about other nodes
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
We can retrieve information about other nodes on the network and the services they offer using
|
|
|
|
``ServiceHub.networkMapCache``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notaries
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Remember that a transaction generally needs a notary to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Prevent double-spends if the transaction has inputs
|
|
|
|
* Serve as a timestamping authority if the transaction has a time-window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several ways to retrieve a notary from the network map:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 01
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 01
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 01
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 01
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Specific counterparties
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
We can also use the network map to retrieve a specific counterparty:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 02
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 02
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 02
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 02
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Communication between parties
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
In order to create a communication session between your initiator flow and the receiver flow you must call
|
|
|
|
``initiateFlow(party: Party): FlowSession``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``FlowSession`` instances in turn provide three functions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* ``send(payload: Any)``
|
|
|
|
* Sends the ``payload`` object
|
|
|
|
* ``receive(receiveType: Class<R>): R``
|
|
|
|
* Receives an object of type ``receiveType``
|
|
|
|
* ``sendAndReceive(receiveType: Class<R>, payload: Any): R``
|
|
|
|
* Sends the ``payload`` object and receives an object of type ``receiveType`` back
|
|
|
|
|
2018-02-22 17:54:57 +00:00
|
|
|
In addition ``FlowLogic`` provides functions that batch receives:
|
|
|
|
* ``receiveAllMap(sessions: Map<FlowSession, Class<out Any>>): Map<FlowSession, UntrustworthyData<Any>>``
|
|
|
|
* Receives from all ``FlowSession``s specified in the passed in map. The received types may differ.
|
|
|
|
* ``receiveAll(receiveType: Class<R>, sessions: List<FlowSession>): List<UntrustworthyData<R>>``
|
|
|
|
* Receives from all ``FlowSession``s specified in the passed in list. The received types must be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The batched functions are implemented more efficiently by the flow framework.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
InitiateFlow
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``initiateFlow`` creates a communication session with the passed in ``Party``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART initiateFlow
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND initiateFlow
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART initiateFlow
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND initiateFlow
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that at the time of call to this function no actual communication is done, this is deferred to the first
|
|
|
|
send/receive, at which point the counterparty will either:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Ignore the message if they are not registered to respond to messages from this flow.
|
|
|
|
2. Start the flow they have registered to respond to this flow.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Send
|
|
|
|
~~~~
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once we have a ``FlowSession`` object we can send arbitrary data to a counterparty:
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 04
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 04
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 04
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 04
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
The flow on the other side must eventually reach a corresponding ``receive`` call to get this message.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Receive
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
We can also wait to receive arbitrary data of a specific type from a counterparty. Again, this implies a corresponding
|
|
|
|
``send`` call in the counterparty's flow. A few scenarios:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
* We never receive a message back. In the current design, the flow is paused until the node's owner kills the flow.
|
|
|
|
* Instead of sending a message back, the counterparty throws a ``FlowException``. This exception is propagated back
|
|
|
|
to us, and we can use the error message to establish what happened.
|
|
|
|
* We receive a message back, but it's of the wrong type. In this case, a ``FlowException`` is thrown.
|
|
|
|
* We receive back a message of the correct type. All is good.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Upon calling ``receive`` (or ``sendAndReceive``), the ``FlowLogic`` is suspended until it receives a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We receive the data wrapped in an ``UntrustworthyData`` instance. This is a reminder that the data we receive may not
|
|
|
|
be what it appears to be! We must unwrap the ``UntrustworthyData`` using a lambda:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 05
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 05
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 05
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 05
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
We're not limited to sending to and receiving from a single counterparty. A flow can send messages to as many parties
|
|
|
|
as it likes, and each party can invoke a different response flow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 06
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 06
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 06
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 06
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
.. warning:: If you initiate several flows from the same ``@InitiatingFlow`` flow then on the receiving side you must be
|
|
|
|
prepared to be initiated by any of the corresponding ``initiateFlow()`` calls! A good way of handling this ambiguity
|
|
|
|
is to send as a first message a "role" message to the initiated flow, indicating which part of the initiating flow
|
|
|
|
the rest of the counter-flow should conform to. For example send an enum, and on the other side start with a switch
|
|
|
|
statement.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
SendAndReceive
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
We can also use a single call to send data to a counterparty and wait to receive data of a specific type back. The
|
|
|
|
type of data sent doesn't need to match the type of the data received back:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 07
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 07
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 07
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 07
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterparty response
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Suppose we're now on the ``Responder`` side of the flow. We just received the following series of messages from the
|
|
|
|
``Initiator``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. They sent us an ``Any`` instance
|
|
|
|
2. They waited to receive an ``Integer`` instance back
|
|
|
|
3. They sent a ``String`` instance and waited to receive a ``Boolean`` instance back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our side of the flow must mirror these calls. We could do this as follows:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 08
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 08
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 08
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 08
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Why sessions?
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before ``FlowSession`` s were introduced the send/receive API looked a bit different. They were functions on
|
|
|
|
``FlowLogic`` and took the address ``Party`` as argument. The platform internally maintained a mapping from ``Party`` to
|
|
|
|
session, hiding sessions from the user completely.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Although this is a convenient API it introduces subtle issues where a message that was originally meant for a specific
|
|
|
|
session may end up in another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the following contrived example using the old ``Party`` based API:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/LaunchSpaceshipFlow.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART LaunchSpaceshipFlow
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND LaunchSpaceshipFlow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The intention of the flows is very clear: LaunchSpaceshipFlow asks the president whether a spaceship should be launched.
|
|
|
|
It is expecting a boolean reply. The president in return first tells the secretary that they need coffee, which is also
|
|
|
|
communicated with a boolean. Afterwards the president replies to the launcher that they don't want to launch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However the above can go horribly wrong when the ``launcher`` happens to be the same party ``getSecretary`` returns. In
|
|
|
|
this case the boolean meant for the secretary will be received by the launcher!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This indicates that ``Party`` is not a good identifier for the communication sequence, and indeed the ``Party`` based
|
|
|
|
API may introduce ways for an attacker to fish for information and even trigger unintended control flow like in the
|
|
|
|
above case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hence we introduced ``FlowSession``, which identifies the communication sequence. With ``FlowSession`` s the above set
|
|
|
|
of flows would look like this:
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/LaunchSpaceshipFlow.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART LaunchSpaceshipFlowCorrect
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND LaunchSpaceshipFlowCorrect
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Note how the president is now explicit about which session it wants to send to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Porting from the old Party-based API
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the old API the first ``send`` or ``receive`` to a ``Party`` was the one kicking off the counter-flow. This is now
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
explicit in the ``initiateFlow`` function call. To port existing code:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART FlowSession porting
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND FlowSession porting
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART FlowSession porting
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND FlowSession porting
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
Subflows
|
|
|
|
--------
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Subflows are pieces of reusable flows that may be run by calling ``FlowLogic.subFlow``. There are two broad categories
|
|
|
|
of subflows, inlined and initiating ones. The main difference lies in the counter-flow's starting method, initiating
|
|
|
|
ones initiate counter-flows automatically, while inlined ones expect some parent counter-flow to run the inlined
|
2018-03-06 16:10:48 +00:00
|
|
|
counterpart.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inlined subflows
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Inlined subflows inherit their calling flow's type when initiating a new session with a counterparty. For example, say
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
we have flow A calling an inlined subflow B, which in turn initiates a session with a party. The FlowLogic type used to
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
determine which counter-flow should be kicked off will be A, not B. Note that this means that the other side of this
|
|
|
|
inlined flow must therefore be implemented explicitly in the kicked off flow as well. This may be done by calling a
|
|
|
|
matching inlined counter-flow, or by implementing the other side explicitly in the kicked off parent flow.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example of such a flow is ``CollectSignaturesFlow``. It has a counter-flow ``SignTransactionFlow`` that isn't
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
annotated with ``InitiatedBy``. This is because both of these flows are inlined; the kick-off relationship will be
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
defined by the parent flows calling ``CollectSignaturesFlow`` and ``SignTransactionFlow``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the code inlined subflows appear as regular ``FlowLogic`` instances, `without` either of the ``@InitiatingFlow`` or
|
|
|
|
``@InitiatedBy`` annotation.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
.. note:: Inlined flows aren't versioned; they inherit their parent flow's version.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initiating subflows
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initiating subflows are ones annotated with the ``@InitiatingFlow`` annotation. When such a flow initiates a session its
|
|
|
|
type will be used to determine which ``@InitiatedBy`` flow to kick off on the counterparty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example is the ``@InitiatingFlow InitiatorFlow``/``@InitiatedBy ResponderFlow`` flow pair in the ``FlowCookbook``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. note:: Initiating flows are versioned separately from their parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core initiating subflows
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corda-provided initiating subflows are a little different to standard ones as they are versioned together with the
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
platform, and their initiated counter-flows are registered explicitly, so there is no need for the ``InitiatedBy``
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
annotation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example is the ``FinalityFlow``/``FinalityHandler`` flow pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Built-in subflows
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
Corda provides a number of built-in flows that should be used for handling common tasks. The most important are:
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
* ``CollectSignaturesFlow`` (inlined), which should be used to collect a transaction's required signatures
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
* ``FinalityFlow`` (initiating), which should be used to notarise and record a transaction as well as to broadcast it to
|
|
|
|
all relevant parties
|
|
|
|
* ``SendTransactionFlow`` (inlined), which should be used to send a signed transaction if it needed to be resolved on
|
|
|
|
the other side.
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
* ``ReceiveTransactionFlow`` (inlined), which should be used receive a signed transaction
|
|
|
|
* ``ContractUpgradeFlow`` (initiating), which should be used to change a state's contract
|
|
|
|
* ``NotaryChangeFlow`` (initiating), which should be used to change a state's notary
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-09-27 14:33:09 +00:00
|
|
|
Let's look at three very common examples.
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FinalityFlow
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
``FinalityFlow`` allows us to notarise the transaction and get it recorded in the vault of the participants of all
|
|
|
|
the transaction's states:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 09
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 09
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 09
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 09
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can also choose to send the transaction to additional parties who aren't one of the state's participants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 10
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 10
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 10
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 10
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
Only one party has to call ``FinalityFlow`` for a given transaction to be recorded by all participants. It does
|
|
|
|
**not** need to be called by each participant individually.
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
CollectSignaturesFlow/SignTransactionFlow
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
The list of parties who need to sign a transaction is dictated by the transaction's commands. Once we've signed a
|
|
|
|
transaction ourselves, we can automatically gather the signatures of the other required signers using
|
|
|
|
``CollectSignaturesFlow``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 15
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 15
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 15
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 15
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each required signer will need to respond by invoking its own ``SignTransactionFlow`` subclass to check the
|
|
|
|
transaction and provide their signature if they are satisfied:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 16
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 16
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 16
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 16
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-04 10:26:31 +00:00
|
|
|
SendTransactionFlow/ReceiveTransactionFlow
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
Verifying a transaction received from a counterparty also requires verification of every transaction in its
|
|
|
|
dependency chain. This means the receiving party needs to be able to ask the sender all the details of the chain.
|
|
|
|
The sender will use ``SendTransactionFlow`` for sending the transaction and then for processing all subsequent
|
|
|
|
transaction data vending requests as the receiver walks the dependency chain using ``ReceiveTransactionFlow``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 12
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 12
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-08-04 10:26:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 12
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 12
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can receive the transaction using ``ReceiveTransactionFlow``, which will automatically download all the
|
|
|
|
dependencies and verify the transaction:
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 13
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 13
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 13
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 13
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
|
|
|
|
2017-08-04 10:26:31 +00:00
|
|
|
We can also send and receive a ``StateAndRef`` dependency chain and automatically resolve its dependencies:
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 14
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 14
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 14
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 14
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-10-03 16:32:11 +00:00
|
|
|
Why inlined subflows?
|
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inlined subflows provide a way to share commonly used flow code `while forcing users to create a parent flow`. Take for
|
|
|
|
example ``CollectSignaturesFlow``. Say we made it an initiating flow that automatically kicks off
|
|
|
|
``SignTransactionFlow`` that signs the transaction. This would mean malicious nodes can just send any old transaction to
|
|
|
|
us using ``CollectSignaturesFlow`` and we would automatically sign it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By making this pair of flows inlined we provide control to the user over whether to sign the transaction or not by
|
|
|
|
forcing them to nest it in their own parent flows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general if you're writing a subflow the decision of whether you should make it initiating should depend on whether
|
|
|
|
the counter-flow needs broader context to achieve its goal.
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
FlowException
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
Suppose a node throws an exception while running a flow. Any counterparty flows waiting for a message from the node
|
|
|
|
(i.e. as part of a call to ``receive`` or ``sendAndReceive``) will be notified that the flow has unexpectedly
|
|
|
|
ended and will themselves end. However, the exception thrown will not be propagated back to the counterparties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to notify any waiting counterparties of the cause of the exception, you can do so by throwing a
|
|
|
|
``FlowException``:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../core/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/core/flows/FlowException.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 1
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The flow framework will automatically propagate the ``FlowException`` back to the waiting counterparties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many scenarios in which throwing a ``FlowException`` would be appropriate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A transaction doesn't ``verify()``
|
|
|
|
* A transaction's signatures are invalid
|
|
|
|
* The transaction does not match the parameters of the deal as discussed
|
|
|
|
* You are reneging on a deal
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
ProgressTracker
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
We can give our flow a progress tracker. This allows us to see the flow's progress visually in our node's CRaSH shell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To provide a progress tracker, we have to override ``FlowLogic.progressTracker`` in our flow:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 17
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 17
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 4
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 17
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 17
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We then update the progress tracker's current step as we progress through the flow as follows:
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. container:: codeset
|
|
|
|
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbook.kt
|
2017-06-05 12:37:23 +00:00
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 18
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 18
|
2017-10-07 11:48:16 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|
2017-06-22 15:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../docs/source/example-code/src/main/java/net/corda/docs/FlowCookbookJava.java
|
|
|
|
:language: java
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART 18
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND 18
|
2017-08-31 09:09:31 +00:00
|
|
|
:dedent: 12
|
2018-02-26 18:02:30 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concurrency, Locking and Waiting
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This is an advanced topic. Because Corda is designed to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* run many flows in parallel,
|
|
|
|
* may persist flows to storage and resurrect those flows much later,
|
|
|
|
* (in the future) migrate flows between JVMs,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flows should avoid use of locks and typically not even attempt to interact with objects shared between flows (except
|
|
|
|
``ServiceHub`` and other carefully crafted services such as Oracles. See :doc:`oracles`).
|
|
|
|
Locks will significantly reduce the scalability of the node, in the best case, and can cause the node to deadlock if they
|
|
|
|
remain locked across flow context switch boundaries (such as sending and receiving
|
|
|
|
from peers discussed above, and the sleep discussed below).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you need activities that are scheduled, you should investigate the use of ``SchedulableState``.
|
|
|
|
However, we appreciate that Corda support for some more advanced patterns is still in the future, and if there is a need
|
|
|
|
for brief pauses in flows then you should use ``FlowLogic.sleep`` in place of where you might have used ``Thread.sleep``.
|
|
|
|
Flows should expressly not use ``Thread.sleep``, since this will prevent the node from processing other flows
|
|
|
|
in the meantime, significantly impairing the performance of the node.
|
|
|
|
Even ``FlowLogic.sleep`` is not to be used to create long running flows, since the Corda ethos is for short lived flows
|
|
|
|
(otherwise upgrading nodes or CorDapps is much more complicated), or as a substitute to using the ``SchedulableState`` scheduler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently the ``finance`` package uses ``FlowLogic.sleep`` to make several attempts at coin selection, where necessary,
|
|
|
|
when many states are soft locked and we wish to wait for those, or other new states in their place, to become unlocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. literalinclude:: ../../finance/src/main/kotlin/net/corda/finance/contracts/asset/cash/selection/AbstractCashSelection.kt
|
|
|
|
:language: kotlin
|
|
|
|
:start-after: DOCSTART CASHSELECT 1
|
|
|
|
:end-before: DOCEND CASHSELECT 1
|
|
|
|
:dedent: 8
|