One of the distinguishing features of Racket’s built-in web-server is that it supports the use of continuations in a web context. This is a feature I’ve only ever seen in Smalltalk’s Seaside before, though Racket’s version is more powerful.
I’ve been leveraging continuations in an e-commerce application I’ve been building these past couple of months and I wanted to write down my thoughts. Let’s dive right in.
First, an Example
#lang web-server/insta (define (render-counter counter) (send/suspend/dispatch (lambda (embed/url) (response/xexpr `(div (h1 "Current count: " ,(number->string counter)) (a ((href ,(embed/url (lambda (req) (render-counter (+ counter 1)))))) "Increment")))))) (define (start req) (render-counter 0))
Note: I’m using “#lang web-server/insta” here, which I realize may be off-putting to some readers (I know it rubbed me the wrong way when I was first reading about web development in Racket). There are more familiar (less magical) ways to implement web servers in Racket than this, but this is the most succinct.
The entry point for this server (the
start function) calls
render-counter with a starting value of
0 for every new request
that comes in.
render-counter then demarcates the start of the
continuation with the call to send/suspend/dispatch and, finally, it
renders some HTML that displays the current value of the counter as
well as a link that, when clicked, will recursively
with an incremented
Notice how naturally this code flows and the fact that the
continuation (the anonymous function that is passed to
able to reference bindings in the scope of its parent.
Here’s what that short piece of code gets you:
I think this is cool as hell. In essence, continuations let you write code that manipulates objects (a counter, a shopping a cart, a form, etc.) local to the current web page without having to do duplicate work – image a shopping cart where you only retrieve a product from the database when you render the product page, but you close over the product when adding it to the cart – and without having to give said code an explicit route. The latter is both a strength and a weakness, as I argue below.
Then, the Bad
As with most things, continuations on the web come with a set of trade-offs.
Continuations are local to a Racket process, meaning that any web server that leverages them is stateful. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but it does mean that you have to be careful when it comes to load balancing and deploying new versions of your application: all new deployments invalidate all existing continuations and you have to rely on session affinity (cookie each user and use that to determine which server they connect to) to tie individual users to particular instances of the web server.
Racket’s particular implementation of continuations stores the continuation id as a parameter in the URI, meaning that if someone guesses the id of your continuation then they can effectively steal your session. This is fairly easy to work around by leveraging dynamic binding in racket:
- for each request, read the continuation security token from the user agent; if it doesn’t exist then generate a large unique value and store that in a cookie on the user agent,
- dynamically bind the current continuation security token for the request,
- before executing each continuation, ensure that the value of the user’s continuation security token cookie is the same as the value of the current continuation security token parameter; if the value is different then return a 403 Forbidden or similar response.
Because of how the continuation machinery works, each continuation will “remember” the continuation security token of the request that created it, ensuring that each continuation is tied to the browser session that it was created by. You can find an implementation of this pattern in my racket-webapp-template project. All in all, it takes less than a hundred lines of code to implement.
Because of the session-stealing issue and the fact that continuation URLs are fairly ugly, they’re not a good match for URLs that should be shareable between users (or for SEO, for that matter). I tend to limit my use of continuations to “actions” that a user may perform on an object local to the current page (eg. adding an item to the shopping cart, or increasing the quantity of said item in the cart, etc.).
Finally, because continuations close over local scope, any objects
captured are going to live for the duration that the continuation
exists. So if you’re not careful, then you may end up leaking memory.
To combat this and to prevent servers’ memory usage from growing
web-server library has a robust implementation of
an LRU continuation manager that expires continuations quicker the
more memory pressure there is. In addition, you can write your own
manager implementation to suit your application if the built-in ones
don’t cut it.
And a Conclusion
That may seem like a lot of “bad”, but all of those points are straightforward tradeoffs that I believe are worth it in the long run given the ergonomics that continuations on the web buy you. Plus, writing code in this way is just so. much. fun!