Concurrent RACSchedulers can result in delivery race conditions about reactivecocoa

[Coneko]

deferredScheduler uses dispatch_get_current_queue so it probably shouldn't be used except for logging or testing purposes in the first place.

[joshaber]

I think the lesson of this and #94 is that RACScheduler needs to become a lot more capable.

[Coneko]

This also implies calling send on a RACSubject from different threads isn't safe if some of it's subscriptions are done indirectly through the non-threadsafe <RACSignal> methods.

I've always used RAC very conservative thread-wise, so I haven't looked into it much, but it seems to me the documentation doesn't make it very clear what is and what is not thread-safe.

[jspahrsummers]

@Coneko That's a good point, but we can solve it by serializing RACSubject message delivery in the same way we're discussing for RACScheduler.

I definitely don't think <RACSignal> and <RACStream> methods should need explicit synchronization. They should be able to treat the stream serially.

[jspahrsummers]

From @Coneko in #143:

[Is] #136 also covered by #138? It doesn't matter if a scheduler delivers concurrently if the subscriber which is the receiver of the delivery takes care of serializing the deliveries.

I want to say that this can be closed once #138 is implemented, but I'm worried there's something I'm overlooking. I'll think about it a bit more.

[jspahrsummers]

Based on how I've fixed RACSubscriber's thread safety in #147, this might still be valuable. That implementation merely applies an arbitrary order to incoming concurrent messages – there's no real concept of thread FIFO.

For example:

RACSubject *subject = [RACSubject subject];

[RACScheduler.backgroundScheduler schedule:^{
    [subject sendNext:@0];
}];

[RACScheduler.backgroundScheduler schedule:^{
    [subject sendNext:@1];
}];

[RACScheduler.backgroundScheduler schedule:^{
    [subject sendNext:@2];
}];

Would you expect 0, 1, and 2 to arrive in that order? There's no guarantee that's how it'll happen right now, because each scheduled block is asynchronous on a concurrent queue, and context switching could cause a later send to complete before an earlier one.

Now, whether this is actually an issue in practice, I still don't know.

[Coneko]

It makes sense to document this behavior in RACScheduler and let the user decide whether they'd rather have a serializing scheduler to ensure values are received in the same order they're sent in or a parallel scheduler to process values as fast as possible.

[jspahrsummers]

👍 Fair point.

[jspahrsummers]

As part of this, it'd also be nice to add a couple things to RACScheduler to solidify a serial vs. concurrent distinction:

// Whether this scheduler is concurrent.
@property (nonatomic, readonly, getter = isConcurrent) BOOL concurrent;

// Returns a serial RACScheduler that schedules its blocks on the receiver.
- (instancetype)asSerialScheduler;