I figured this question might have been asked before, but I have found no success implementation yet, so that prompted me to ask a new one.
My scenario is looking like this: I have one server (running under an ASP.Net site). A main SignalR server is self-hosted within the application using OWIN. Let's say this is running under localhost:8181. I have one central Hub that contains all the necessary functions to communicate between the client and the server itself. Under normal usage, the client would make a call to this endpoint: http://localhost:8181/signalr/hubs.
Now, I would like to add another different endpoint of SignalR, like http://localhost:8282/signalr2/hubs. The reason is that, in the central Hub, I have a function that only used by a specific client. The special client is the only client that I want to be able to invoke that function and within it, the data is transferred to other clients in the first endpoints. In theory, I could make use one endpoint and manage them, but I would like to separate out the special client for easy debugging and maintenance, as well as maybe performance improvement.
Right now, I can start them both using different configurations in the same ASP.Net application. Connections from all clients, including the special client are working. Except, at this point, I do not know a good way to filter the special client and send the data to other clients.
Below is the configuration code for both endpoints that I have implemented:
public class SignalRStartup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
var hubConfiguration = new HubConfiguration
{
EnableDetailedErrors = true,
EnableJavaScriptProxies = true
};
app.UseCors(CorsOptions.AllowAll);
app.UseErrorPage(new Microsoft.Owin.Diagnostics.ErrorPageOptions { ShowExceptionDetails = true });
app.MapSignalR(hubConfiguration);
}
}
public class SignalR2Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
var hubConfiguration = new HubConfiguration
{
EnableDetailedErrors = true,
EnableJavaScriptProxies = true,
};
app.UseCors(CorsOptions.AllowAll);
app.UseErrorPage(new Microsoft.Owin.Diagnostics.ErrorPageOptions { ShowExceptionDetails = true });
app.MapSignalR("/signalr2", hubConfiguration);
}
}
In the Application_Start(), I added these:
_signalR = WebApp.Start<SignalRStartup>("http://localhost:8181");
_signalR2 = WebApp.Start<SignalR2Startup>("http://localhost:8282");
Sample Hub code:
[HubName("NotificationHub")]
public class NotificationHub : Hub
{
// Special client invoke this, the msg is passed to other clients in the 8181 endpoint
public void A(string msg)
{
// This Clients object should refer to other clients in 8181 endpoint
Clients.All.sendMsg(msg);
}
}
Because of the Clients is resolved automatically by GlobalHost, that means its include all the client, without any exception.
So my question is that what is the correct implementation in order to achieve my scenario? Also, if we use the proper implementation, how to figure out the correct clients so send the message that can exclude the ?
To summarize:
SignalR 1 & SignalR 2 has same NotificationHub with function A
Client 1 -> SignalR 1 (localhost:8181)
Client 2 -> SignalR 1 (localhost:8181)
SpecialClient -> Signalr 2 (localhost:8282)
SpecialClient invoke A(), in which, data is send to Client 1 & Client 2, exclude SpecialClient
The special client is the only client that I want to be able to invoke
that function and within it, the data is transferred to other clients
The easiest way is to not separate them.
In some manner you have to know what makes that client "special" and with that you can put them in a role to give them access to methods other clients cannot access.
Restrict access to certain methods -
[Authorize(Roles = "Admin")]
public class AdminAuthHub : Hub
{
}
Find more info - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/signalr/overview/security/hub-authorization
How to send data to the clients -> Clients.Others would send to everyone else except the sender (the special client). But you could also put your special client in a "special" group and all your other clients in "non-special" group and only broadcast to the group you want using Clients.Group
Related
Just trying to wrap my mind around handling pushing data to some users through SignalR.
Say, in a private chat situation, Person A sends a message to Person B. If I'm understanding the concept correctly, I need to create a Group for each user who logged into the system. This way, when the new message from Person A comes in, in my SignalR Hub, I'd send the message to the group for Person B which only has only one user in it i.e. Person B.
In this approach, I'd essentially create a unique Group for each user so that I have the flexibility to push data to each unique user. I could use the UserId as the Group Id.
Is this the way to handle pushing data selectively to each unique user?
You can grab client Ids manully like so and then send them using the hubcontext to avoid creating a lot of groups (you just need to implement a menthod which get you're connections from your resource in my case im using dtos)
I'm assuming your hubs have some type of connection manager, here's a sample of one from the docs
In my case I have a dynamic configuration which I use to configure my hubs using the Type of DTO, and I send hubs using a generic hub base here is a sample implementation:
Warning: things may slightly be different I'm using .Net-Core in this example
//NOTE: THub must be the one Registered with MapHubs in the Startup
//class or your connections won't be there because Hubs are not contravarient
public abstract class HubBase<TDTO, THub> : Hub
Where THub: HubBase<TDTO, THub>
{
protected IHubContext<THub> hubContext;
HubBase(IHubContext<THub> hubContext)
{
this._hubContext = hubContext;
}
protected abstract List<string> GetConnectionsByDto(TDTO dto)
protected async Task SendFilteredAsync(string eventName, TDTO dto)
{
var clientIds = await this.GetConnectionsByDto(dto);
if (false == clientIds.Any())
{
return;
}
var broadcastTasks = clientIds.Select(async clientId =>
await this._hubContext.Clients.Client(clientId).SendAsync(eventName, dto));
await Task.WhenAll(broadcastTasks);
}
}
I have a Socket handler in Vert.x and I know how to send data through the EventBus in a client-to-server (from Web Browser to Web Server) and server-component-to-server-component fashions.
Now I have a JavaFX-Client connected to the Vert.x Socket handler through websockets:
public void start() {
vertx.createHttpClient()
.setHost(Main.SOCKET_SERVER)
.setPort(8080)
.connectWebsocket("/chat/service", new Handler<WebSocket>() {
#Override
public void handle(WebSocket websocket) {
ws = websocket;
websocket.dataHandler(new Handler<Buffer>() {
#Override
public void handle(Buffer data) {
System.out.println("Received Data");
}
});
//...
// use ws for authentification
ws.writeTextFrame("doAuthentification");
//...
}
}
}
The Socket is connected to "/chat/service".
Now I want to use this Websocket to call different Services from Vert.x. I know that EventBus is not working from JavaFX-Client.
On the server:
ws.dataHandler(new Handler<Buffer>() {
#Override
public void handle(final Buffer data) {
String text = data.toString();
if(text.contentEquals("doAuthentification")){
logger.info("doAuthentification()");
doAuthentification();
}
// ...
}
}
I can now send "commands" like doAuthentification through the WebSocket, then, on server side and when that command is received, I can use the EventBus to process it further.
What would be the correct way using it from a client. Ideas?
Since you application is packaged as a standalone application is not deployed as in a Vert.x instance, you won't be able to call the event-bus since it is a Vert.x specific feature.
Your method to go would be, as you already tyried, to communicate to your Vert.x application in a standard way, through socket, or http for example (I would recommend HTTP and a RESTful application style), and send messages through an entry point that will be later on transferred to the appropriate verticles.
You may need to configure many path based handlers, maybe using a regex capture group inside, and let each handler choose the appropriate schema to delegate events, instead of having a single handler based on hardcoded messages.
My WCF Webservice provide all data manipulation operations and my ASP .Net Web application present the user interface.
I need to pass user information with many wcf methods from ASP .Net app to WCF app.
Which one in is better approach regarding passing user info from web app to web service?
1) Pass user information with SOAP header?
ASP .Net Application has to maintain the number of instances of WCF Webservice client as the number of user logged in with the web application. Suppose 4000 user are concurrently active, Web app has to maintain the 4000 instances of WCF webserice client.
Is it has any performance issue?
2) Pass user information with each method call as an additional parameter?
Every method has to add this addtional paramter to pas the user info which does not seems a elegant solution.
Please suggest.
regards,
Dharmendra
I believe it's better to pass some kind of user ID in a header of every message you send to your WCF service. It's pretty easy to do, and it's a good way to get info about user + authorize users on service-side if needed. And you don't need 4000 instances of webservice client for this.
You just need to create Behavior with Client Message Inspector on client side(and register it in your config). For example:
public class AuthClientMessageInspector: IClientMessageInspector
{
public void AfterReceiveReply(ref Message reply, object correlationState)
{
}
public object BeforeSendRequest(ref Message request, IClientChannel channel)
{
request.Headers.Add(MessageHeader.CreateHeader("User", "app", "John"));
return null;
}
}
public class ClientBehavior : IEndpointBehavior
{
public void AddBindingParameters(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters)
{
}
public void ApplyClientBehavior(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, ClientRuntime clientRuntime)
{
foreach (var operation in endpoint.Contract.Operations)
{
operation.Behaviors.Find<DataContractSerializerOperationBehavior>().MaxItemsInObjectGraph = Int32.MaxValue;
}
var inspector = new AuthClientMessageInspector();
clientRuntime.MessageInspectors.Add(inspector);
}
public void ApplyDispatchBehavior(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, EndpointDispatcher endpointDispatcher)
{
}
public void Validate(ServiceEndpoint endpoint)
{
}
}
And extract it from your service-side:
var headers = OperationContext.Current.IncomingMessageHeaders;
var identity = headers.GetHeader<string>("User", "app");
I am new to asp.net. I have gone through this link which has shown how to count the online users connected to a server using asp.net. (which is working when I tried)
My question is: What should I change in that code (Global.asax) so that It shows all the names of the connected users instead of counting them.
I created a chat application which stores the name of the connected user in a variable chatUsername in js file as shown below:
js file
var chatUsername = window.prompt("Enter Username:", "");
//
chat.client.addMessage = //Function
//
chat.server.send(chatUsername);
.aspx.cs file
//Using SignalR (I think this doesnt matter)
public class Chat : Hub
{
public void Send(string from)
{
// Call the addMessage method on all clients
Clients.All.addMessage(from);
}
}
You can find my complete code here
EDIT: Please provide a simple example related only to asp.net or signalr (no other technologies like MVC)
Please help.
Edit: following code refers to SignalR v0.5, not the latest 1.0Alpha2, but I believe the reasoning is the same
To do this you need to add several steps to your SignalR connection process, both in the server and in the client:
on the server side:
on application start-up, for example, you can instantiate a static in-memory repository (can be a dictionary of ) that will serve as the user repository to store all currently connected users.
In the hub you need to handle the Disconnect event (when a user disconnects, needs to be removed from the user repository as well) and notify all other clients that this user disconnected
In the hub you need to add two new methods (the names can be whatever you want) that will help client connect to the system and get the list of currently connected users:
GetConnectedUsers() that just returns a collection of connected users
Joined() where the Hub will create a new User, using the info stored in the round-trip state (the username selected by the client) and the SignalR connection ID, and add the newly created user to the in-memory repository.
on the client side:
First you need to instantiate the javascript object that relates to your server-side hub
var chat = $.connection.chat;
chat.username = chatUsername;
Then implements all the functions that will be called by the hub and finally connect to the hub:
// Step 1: Start the connection
// Step 2: Get all currenlty connected users
// Step 3: Join to the chat and notify all the clients (me included) that there is a new user connected
$.connection.hub.start()
.done(function () {
chat.getConnectedUsers()
.done(/*display your contacts*/);
});
}).done(function () {
chat.joined();
});
});
});
If you are asking why we need to add a stage like "chat.joined()" is because in the method on the Hub that is handling the connection event, the round-trip state is not yet available, so the hub cannot retrieve the username chosen by the user.
Anyway I made a blog post to show more in detail how to create a basic SignalR chat web application using Asp.Net MVC, and it is available at:
http://thewayofcode.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/chatr-just-another-chat-application-using-signalr/
In the post you will also find a link to the github repository where the source is published.
I hope this helps.
Valerio
Apparently, you are using Signal-R - so try tracking state of online users (i.e. connected clients) in java-script itself. Use Connected/Disconnected/Reconnected server side events to broadcast to all clients - from documentation:
public class Chat : Hub
{
public override Task OnConnected()
{
return Clients.All.joined(Context.ConnectionId, DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
public override Task OnDisconnected()
{
return Clients.All.leave(Context.ConnectionId, DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
public override Task OnReconnected()
{
return Clients.All.rejoined(Context.ConnectionId, DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
}
A global server side store (for example - a static dictionary) can be used to store state against the connection id - that way, this dictionary can give you users for needed connection ids. For example,
// dis-claimer: untested code - just to give the idea/hint/outline
public class Chat : Hub
{
// change to use Concurrent Dictionary (or do thread-safe access)
static Dictionary<string, User> _users = new Dictionary<string, User>()
// call from client when it goes online
public void Join(string name)
{
var connId = this.Context.ConnectionId;
__users.Add(connId, new User(connId, name));
}
public override Task OnConnected()
{
return Clients.All.joined(_users[Context.ConnectionId], DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
public override Task OnDisconnected()
{
var user = _users[Context.ConnectionId];
_users.Remove(Context.ConnectionId);
return Clients.All.leave(user, DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
public List<User> GetUsers()
{
return _users.Values.ToList()
}
}
I think this should work for you :-
void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Code that runs on application startup
Application["OnlineUsers"] = 0;
List<string> list = new List<string>();
}
//First check if it is Authenticated request:-
void Session_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(Request.IsAuthenticated)
list.Add(User.Identity.Name);
//your rest of code .......
}
list will return you all the username who are online :-
I want to make a service that notify the user in case there are some new messages sent to him. Thus I want to use some Comet framework that provide the server push ability. So I have looked into PokeIn.
Just wondering a thing. I have checked on the samples that they have on the website. None of them look into the database to retrieve new entries if there are some. But it is just a matter of modification to it I guess.
One of the sample implement this long polling by using a sleep on the server side. So if I use the same approach I can check the database, if there are any new entries, every 5 seconds. However this approach doesn't seem to be much different from when using polling on the client side with javascript.
This part is from a sample. As can be seen they put a sleep there for to update current time for everybody.
static void UpdateClients()
{
while (true)
{
//.. code to check database
if (CometWorker.ActiveClientCount > 0)
{
CometWorker.SendToAll(JSON.Method("UpdateTime", DateTime.Now));
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
So I wonder is this how I should implement the message notifier? It seems that the above approach is still going to push a huge load demand on the server side. The message notifier is intend to work same way as the one found Facebook.
You shouldn't implement this way, that sample is only implemented like that because the keep PokeIn related part is clear. You should implement SQL part as mentioned http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/12335/Using-SqlDependency-for-data-change-events
in order to track changes on database.
So, when you have something to send, call one of the PokeIn methods for the client side delivery. I don't know, how much your application is time critical because in addition to reverse ajax, PokeIn's internal websocket feature is very easy to activate and delivers messages to client quite fast.
You can do this with database as #Zuuum said, but I implemented it in a different way.
I'm using ASP.NET MVC with PokeIn and EF in a Windows Azure environment:
I have domain events similar to this approach: Strengthening your domain: Domain Events
When someone invokes an action, that's a Unit of Work
If that UOW succeeds then I raise a domain event (e.g. ChatMessageSent)
I have subscribers for these domain events so they can receive the event and forward the message to the PokeIn listeners
I use this pattern for all my real-time needs on my game site (making moves, actions etc in a game), I don't want to advertise it here, you can find it through me if you want.
I always use this pattern as a duplex communication solution so everybody gets their update via PokeIn, even the user who invoked the action so every client will behave the same. So when someone calls an action it won't return anything except the success signal.
The next examples are won't work because they are only snippets to demonstrate the flow
Here is an action snippet from my code:
[HttpPost]
[UnitOfWork]
[RestrictToAjax]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public JsonResult Post(SendMessageViewModel msg)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var chatMessage = new ChatMessage
{
ContainerType = msg.ContainerType,
ContainerID = msg.ContainerID,
Message = _xssEncoder.Encode(msg.Message),
User = _profileService.CurrentUser
};
_chatRepository.AddMessage(chatMessage);
OnSuccessfulUoW = () => EventBroker.Current.Send(this, new ChatMessageSentPayload(chatMessage));
}
return Json(Constants.AjaxOk);
}
And the (simplified) EventBroker implementation:
public class UnityEventBroker : EventBroker
{
private readonly IUnityContainer _container;
public UnityEventBroker(IUnityContainer container)
{
_container = container;
}
public override void Send<TPayload>(object sender, TPayload payload)
{
var subscribers = _container.ResolveAll<IEventSubscriber<TPayload>>();
if (subscribers == null) return;
foreach (var subscriber in subscribers)
{
subscriber.Receive(sender, payload);
}
}
}
And the even more simplified subscriber:
public class ChatMessageSentSubscriber : IEventSubscriber<ChatMessageSentPayload>
{
public void Receive(object sender, ChatMessageSentPayload payload)
{
var message = payload.Message;
var content = SiteContent.Global;
var clients = Client.GetClients(c => c.ContentID == message.ContainerID && c.Content == content)
.Select(c => c.ClientID)
.ToArray();
var dto = ObjectMapper.Current.Map<ChatMessage, ChatMessageSentDto>(message);
var json = PokeIn.JSON.Method("pokein", dto);
CometWorker.SendToClients(clients, json);
}
}