https://kotlinlang.org
Join Slack
Ok I'm still learning about coroutines, and I'm a bit confused with the coroutines builders zoo... I...
# coroutines
c
Ok I'm still learning about coroutines, and I'm a bit confused with the coroutines builders zoo... Is this all correct? • launch: Creates a new coroutine. Code below 
launch {}
continues being executed instantly (although because structured concurrency, coroutine will finally wait for its children to finish). • async: Creates a new coroutine. Code below 
async {}
continues being executed instantly (although because structured concurrency, coroutine will finally wait for its children to finish). • runBlocking: Creates a new coroutine. Execution is blocked. Code below 
runBlocking {}
won't execute until runBlocking has ended. • coroutineScope: Creates a new coroutine. Execution is suspended (it's the suspending version of runBlocking). Code below 
coroutineScope {}
won't execute until coroutineScope has ended. Now, if this is correct, the only coroutine builder whose name makes sense is runBlocking 🤷‍♂️ The other ones seem to have absolutely random names. The 4 coroutine builders "launch" the coroutine, two of them are "asynchronous" in some sense (both launch and async), and 4 of 4 again have a "coroutine scope", what am I not understanding here? Why do they have these names?
z
I think 
async
is the most surprising of these names, but I think it’s called that because it’s supposed to be one-half of the `async`/`await` keywords in other languages (javascript, python, c#). It’s probably named this way for discoverability and to hint at how it’s meant to be used for people familiar with async/await. But if you don’t have that context, the name does seem super random.
launch
is the most basic way to “launch” a coroutine. It just launches it, fire-and-forget, it doesn’t do anything else. 
async
could probably be called 
launchForValue
if it wasn’t for the async/await thing.
c
Absolutely, and the one which bugs me the most is coroutineScope, why is it not called runSuspending? Man the documentation should be reviewed by the devs... I'm having a hard time to understand anything. If I understand something now it's not because the docs but because I'm doing a lot of CSI stuff on the Internet
z
This is how I think about it, although I definitely see your point: 
coroutineScope
doesn’t really create a new coroutine, really, anymore than 
runBlocking
creates a new thread. It simply delineates a scope within which new coroutines can be created. Whereas 
runBlocking
is usually used in a way where it will run a bunch of coroutines for some time and block the thread for potentially quite a long time (the “blocking” nature of the call is very important), 
coroutineScope
is primarily meant to define a scope. The scoping is the more important thing, not the suspending.
Framed another way, 
coroutineScope
is used when you need to get a scope in which to start some coroutines from inside a suspend function. 
runBlocking
is used in the more rare case when you’re not already in the coroutine world and need to block the current thread in order to run some coroutines.
c
So technically speaking coroutineScope is not a coroutine builder? And making a new scope... doesn't that destroy the idea of structured concurency? Because it won't be inheriting the parent scope anymore
z
The new scope does inherit from the parent scope, that’s the whole point.
c
And what does launch/async/runBlocking do with the scope, don't they inherit too? What's the difference then? 🤔
z
Everything (except 
runBlocking
) inherits scope.
coroutineScope {}
is basically the same thing as writing 
with(CoroutineScope(coroutineContext + Job(parent = coroutineContext[Job]))) {}
c
And launch is doing the same thing isn't it? It's creating a new Job and adding it to the scope
z
launch
and 
async
create new jobs, yes. I don’t really think of them as “adding the job to the scope” though, since they aren’t mutating the current scope. They’re creating a new scopes which shares everything from the current scope, except the job is a child of the current job.
c
What's the difference then with using coroutineScope? Because if I have an explicit "scope builder" like coroutineScope, why do launch and async create new scopes too?
z
It’s important not to conflate “job” and “scope”. A job defines the lifetime of a coroutine. A scope contains a job, but also contains other context. So when you say a scope inherits from another scope, you’re really kind of saying two things: the child scope’s job is a child of the parent scope’s job, and the child scope might share some/all of the rest of the context from the parent (e.g. dispatcher, error handler, name, etc).
The use case for 
coroutineScope
is to create a “group” of child coroutines so that the parent coroutine can wait for them all to be completed, and that will all be cancelled if the parent is.
c
To me, that sounds like a heavy ton of implicit information from something called 
coroutineScope
, specially when launch and async don't make you wait but they create new "coroutineScopes" too 😕
I still don't see the difference exactly between coroutineScope and the other ones, except that coroutineScope makes you "wait" via suspending
z
E.g. you might try to write something like
Copy code
suspend fun doSomeThings() {
  launch { doFirstThing() }
  launch { doSecondThing() }
}
But that won’t work, because 
launch
is defined as an extension function on 
CoroutineScope
. And if it did work, e.g. you used the 
GlobalScope
, then these coroutines would be leaked – if they never finished, then they would take up memory/resources forever. And there’s no way to cancel them. Instead you’d write:
Copy code
suspend fun doSomeThings() {
  coroutineScope {
    launch { doFirstThing() }
    launch { doSecondThing() }
  }
}
Another way of thinking about it is that 
coroutineScope
just gives you a block which lets you start coroutines. You can’t even call launch/async without a scope, and 
coroutineScope
is a good way to get one if you’re already in a suspend function.
c
And in your example, how does that 
coroutineScope
know who is the parent scope? Is it the parent scope of the suspending function caller?
z
The job of the coroutine that calls 
doSomeThings()
is the parent of the job inside 
coroutineScope
, which is the parent of the jobs that 
doFirstThing()
and 
doSecondThing()
see.
c
Umm ok... and do you personally think this is well explained in the docs? Because I have spent more than a week trying to understand coroutines and I still don't get it well
z
Well the docs make sense to me now for the most part, but that doesn’t mean they would make sense to me if I was coming at this for the first time 😅
c
Soooo the only way to call launch and async from a suspend fun is using coroutineScope? Or is there some other strange edge use case for it?
z
Basically yes!
Technically you can call `launch`/`async` on any 
CoroutineScope
instance, but the most common and simplest way is to use 
coroutineScope{}
. But you can, for example, write
Copy code
val scope = CoroutineScope(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>)
scope.launch {}
However in that case, the scope’s job is not a child of the current job, so you’ve just broken structured concurrency. Don’t do that unless you really mean to.
I’m not sure if this will make any more sense or just add to your confusion, but I tried to explain all this stuff a while back from a different angle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqOGze29xPQ▾

c
Thank you very much! I'm gonna check it out. By the way your example breaks structured concurrency, but doesn't 
withContext(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>)
break it too? Why is it recommended practice?
Well the question is more like "Why does 
withContext
is called like that and not 
withDispatcher
?"
z
However in that case, the scope’s job is not a child of the current job, so you’ve just broken structured concurrency.
Yes it does 🙂
withContext
can change any part of the context, not just the dispatcher. E.g. you can do 
withContext(CoroutineName("debug me"))
c
I know you said it, I was affirming it, my english is sloppy sorry 😂
z
withContext
doesn’t break structured concurrency unless you pass in a job without a parent.
so 
withContext(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>)
is fine, but 
withContext(Job())
would break it (actually not sure if that would even run, it might throw an exception if you try to pass a different job in).
and for completeness, if you changed my earlier example to 
CoroutineScope(Job(parent = coroutineContext[Job]))
, then it would not break structured concurrency.
The coroutine context is like an immutable 
Map
. 
withContext(foo) {}
is basically just 
with(coroutineContext + foo) {}
, where 
coroutineContext
is the context of the caller.
c
So the job hierarchy is what really "defines" the structured concurrency? Sorry I'm not really fluent in Kotlin (yet), do you mean that if Context has 5 properties, when you call 
withContext(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>)
, it creates a new context with the new dispatcher but it defaults all the other stuff with whatever it was before?
z
So the job hierarchy is what really “defines” the structured concurrency?
YES! Exactly!
if Context has 5 properties, when you call withContext(Dispatchers.IO), it creates a new context with the new dispatcher but it defaults all the other stuff with whatever it was before?
Also yes!
c
I'm glad I'm understanding something at least 😂 Thank you for your time! I'm gonna watch your video
j
I nominate this thread to be permanently pinned on the channel. Brilliant.
❤️ 3
t
old thread, but quick question.. this code(screenshotted to get the implicit type hints), the suspend function calls coroutineScope, who now can call a launch, who now is his own coroutine parented under the new scope. My simple question: how does the caller of 
test()
which HAS to be a couroutine(since it is suspendable) get to become the parent of the 
coroutineScope
defined in 
test
? from the doc:
Copy code
The provided scope inherits its [coroutineContext][CoroutineScope.coroutineContext] from the outer scope, but overrides
 * the context's [Job].
Is it just part of the 
suspendCoroutineUninterceptedOrReturn
implementation that links the two?
I sent that, and semi-figured it out... another screenshot: 
coroutineContext
seems to be a local variable inside of suspend functions.
Copy code
@InlineOnly
public suspend inline val coroutineContext: CoroutineContext
    get() {
        throw NotImplementedError("Implemented as intrinsic")
    }
What is that?
I know I'm getting into the guts, and they're not really for human consumption.. But just digging more into this thread(which was awesome!)
z
old thread
Only two days 😛
Is it just part of the suspendCoroutineUninterceptedOrReturn implementation that links the two?
Not quite.
Copy code
public suspend fun <R> coroutineScope(block: suspend CoroutineScope.() -> R): R {
    return suspendCoroutineUninterceptedOrReturn { uCont ->
        val coroutine = ScopeCoroutine(uCont.context, uCont)
        coroutine.startUndispatchedOrReturn(coroutine, block)
    }
}
The current context (
uCont.context
) is passed to the 
ScopeCoroutine
constructor, which passes it through to the 
AbstractCoroutine
constructor. 
AbstractCoroutine
wires up the job inside the context to be the parent of itself (see 
initParentJobInternal()
). 
AbstractCoroutine
also implements 
CoroutineScope
, and so the 
coroutine
is passed as the receiver for the coroutine block (i.e. the first arg to 
startUndispatchedOrReturn()
).
🤯 1
c
I'm a bit curious about the question @taer made... but, inside every coroutine, what does really exist, a "current scope" or a "current context" at top level?
I guess a scope because it has the context inside as a property?
And that is passed somewhat magically to 
coroutineScope
as a parent?
z
coroutineContext seems to be a local variable inside of suspend functions.
It’s not a local variable, it’s a top-level/global property. It’s basically shorthand for writing:
Copy code
val coroutineContext = suspendCoroutine { continuation ->
  continuation.resume(continuation.context)
}
That is, the continuations that are passed around as the core currency of coroutines always contains the current context, which you can see by calling one of the 
suspendCoroutine
functions to actually get access to a continuation. 
coroutineContext
is just a convenient way to get it without the boilerplate.
CoroutineScope
is nothing special. It’s just a thing that points to a 
CoroutineContext
.
c
But don't you mean that the core currency of coroutines always contains the current scope (not exactly the context)?
z
The only reason 
CoroutineScope
is a thing at all is to serve as a place to hang extension methods off of. It’s a common pattern for functions that take lambdas-with-receivers to call the receiver type 
SomethingScope
. But as far as the actual semantics are concerned for coroutines, “scope” and “context” are the same thing (a scope is just a different way of referring to a context).
CoroutineScope
is literally just
Copy code
interface CoroutineScope {
  val coroutineContext: CoroutineContext
}
Conceptually, you can think of it like this:
Copy code
interface CoroutineScope {
  val coroutineContext: Map<ContextKey, Any?>
}
c
That makes sense, so normally when people is talking about the context in coroutines, they might be referring to a CoroutineScope?
z
It’s more the other way around. 
CoroutineContext
is the core data type that actually matters, it came before 
CoroutineScope
, it actually holds the context, etc. And the two are effectively interchangeable – 
CoroutineScope(CoroutineScope(CoroutineScope.coroutineContext).coroutineContext).coroutineContext
The only caveat is that the 
CoroutineScope()
function will always return a scope with a context that has a 
Job
– if the context passed to it does not have a 
Job
, an orphan one will be created.
c
But... okay this question is kinda noob 😂 I'm seeing CoroutineScope as an Interface with Intellij IDEA, so, how can you call that 
CoroutineScope
, isn't it a constructor?
z
c
Oh okay thank you!
What puzzles me a bit is... why can you make 
withContext(<http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO>)
? That makes you guess that built in dispatchers (IO, Default, etc.) are actually some context instances... but in that case, how can that work? Those instances will probably have their own Job instance, their own everything. If the code inside 
withContext
runs within a different context, then it will run within a different coroutine because the Job is different isn't it? 🤔
That seems like breaking the structured concurrency but there must be something wrong in my reasoning
z
You're right that dispatchers are actually context instances themselves. CoroutineContext acts like a map, but it's implemented as a linked list. Every context "element" is both the thing that holds the value for its map entry, and a pointer to the rest of the map. 
Job
is a context element. A dispatcher is a context element too. A context element is a context that only contains one element.
Not every context contains a Job.
c
My head exploded, so it's like a composite pattern? I'm looking at the function, so there in the blue section it's getting the Job for the coroutine etc. and combining it with the dispatcher? (obviously in the case that you wanted to call it with Dispatchers.IO or something like that). Because I guess it needs a job in order to work (no pun intended)
🥁 1
z
Yep, pretty much.
c
Thank you very much, I'm understanding a lot more now
z
oldContext
is a map, 
context
is a map, 
oldContext + context
is like 
+
-ing any maps – the keys in the left one are “overwritten” with the same keys in the right one.
c
Yeah, so it's like a "merge"
10 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by

kotlinlang

A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

Powered by