I'm working on a project structured as N-Tier / 3-Tier Architectural Style. The layers (client-server) communicate with each other by HTTP and WCF. I want to use AppInsights to track everything in the project. However, I'm confused about where in the project to create or add AppInsight packages. I have created two instances of resources under one resource group on Azure. Then, I configured inst. key and other things regarding projects in the solution. Although I overrode handle attribute with mine(as explained in AppInsights docs), I couldn't see all call methods and exception tracks from client to server along with layers. Is it not possible to track exceptions in that project type or I'm mistaken?
UPDATE for additional info to define problem clearly: When I use one resource and one instrumentation key, AppInsights defines well whole project and shows relation of my solution and its dependencies. But, when one request failed due to exception in the server, I can't reach whole exception trace, just last method where request is asked from server. Because of that I use two resource instance, one for server and one for client(not real client, its like middle layer).
if you are using multiple apps/keys and multiple layers, you might need to introduce custom code to set/pass through something like a correlationId through http headers, and code that reads and uses that as application insights's "operation id". If you do the work across different applications/ikeys, searching across the apps will become more complicated.
instead, you might want to use just one ikey across all the layers, and instead use different ikeys for different environments, like dev/staging/prod instead.
there are some examples of reading/using operationId, like this blog post:
http://blog.marcinbudny.com/2016/04/application-insights-for-owin-based.html#.WBkL24WcFaQ
where someone does something similar with OWIN.
For Exception tracking, if the exceptions are happening at one of the other asp.net layers, you might need to enable some extra settings to collect exceptions or more information for them:
http://apmtips.com/blog/2016/06/21/application-insights-for-mvc-and-mvc-web-api/
Related
We have a flex application that connects to a proxy server which handles authentication. If the authentication has timeout out the proxy server returns a json formatted error string. What I would like to do is inspect every URLRequest response and check if there's an error message and display it in the flex client then redirect back to login screen.
So I'm wondering if its possible to create an event listener to all URLRequests in a global fashion. Without having to search through the project and add some method to each URLRequest. Any ideas if this is possible?
Unless you're only using one service, there is no way to set a global URLRequest handler. If I were you, I'd think more about architecting your application properly by using a delegate and always checking the result through a particular service which is used throughout the app.
J_A_X has some good suggestions, but I'd take it a bit farther. Let me make some assumptions based on the limited information you've provided.
The services are scattered all over your application means that they're actually embedded in multiple Views.
If your services can all be handled by the same handler, you notionally have one service, copied many times.
Despite what you see in the Adobe examples showing their new Service generation code, it's incredibly bad practice to call services directly from Views, in part because of the very problem you are seeing--you can wind up with lots of copies of the same service code littered all over your application.
Depending on how tightly interwoven your application is (believe me, I've inherited some pretty nasty stuff, so I know this might be easier said than done), you may find that the easiest thing is to remove all of those various services and replace them by having all your Views dispatch a bubbling event that gets caught at the top level. At the top level, you respond to that event by calling one instance of your service, which is again handled in one place.
You may or may not choose to wrap that single service in a delegate, but once you have your application archtected in a way where the service is decoupled from your Views, you can make that choice at any time.
Would you be able to extend the class and add an event listener in the object's constructor? I don't like this approach but it could work.
You would just have to search/replace the whole project.
I'm currently working with web services that return objects such as a list of files e.g. File array.
I wanted to know whether its best practice to bind this type of object directly to my front end code for example a repeater/listview or whether to first parse it into my own list of "file class" e.g. customFiles[]
If the web service changes then it will break my front end code, however if I create my own CustomFile class, then i would only need to change my code in one place to fix the issue, but it just seems like a lot of extra work to create the same classes from a web service, i wanted to know what is the best practice for this type of work.
There is a delicate balancing act in properly encapsulating implementation details. Too little encapsulation is a maintenance nightmare as small changes in any area break the application. Too many layers is a different kind of maintenance headache altogether.
In this particular case I would create a small layer in your application to encapsulate the web service calls. This will ease your maintenance in both the application and the service as they will be loosely coupled.
It sounds like you have already answered your own problem. Best practice is to create your own custom class for the reasons you point out, but it is significant extra work.
If the webservice isn't likely to change then just use the existing classes, but if you need to cater for change then create your own.
Returning a class is fine as long as your client knows how to deserialize it. If it's truly a web service, where you don't have control over both ends of the conversation, it's more common to start with schemas for XML request and response streams. That decouples the client from the web service a bit more and allows any client that can send XML via HTTP and consume an XML response fair game.
In an effort to understand MVC 2 and attempt to get my company to adopt it as a viable platform for future development, I have been doing a lot of reading lately. Having worked with ASP.NET pretty exclusively for the past few years, I had some catching up to do.
Currently, I understand the repository pattern, models, controllers, data annotations, etc. But there is one thing that is keeping me from completely understanding enough to start work on a reference application.
The first is the Service Layer Pattern. I have read many blog posts and questions here on Stack Overflow, but I still don't completely understand the purpose of this pattern. I watched the entire video series at MVCCentral on the Golf Tracker Application and also looked at the demo code he posted and it looks to me like the service layer is just another wrapper around the repository pattern that doesn't perform any work at all.
I also read this post: http://www.asp.net/Learn/mvc/tutorial-38-cs.aspx and it seemed to somewhat answer my question, however, if you are using data annotations to perform your validation, this seems unnecessary.
I have looked for demonstrations, posts, etc. but I can't seem to find anything that simply explains the pattern and gives me compelling evidence to use it.
Can someone please provide me with a 2nd grade (ok, maybe 5th grade) reason to use this pattern, what I would lose if I don't, and what I gain if I do?
In a MVC pattern you have responsibilities separated between the 3 players: Model, View and Controller.
The Model is responsible for doing the business stuff, the View presents the results of the business (providing also input to the business from the user) while the Controller acts like the glue between the Model and the View, separating the inner workings of each from the other.
The Model is usually backed up by a database so you have some DAOs accessing that. Your business does some...well... business and stores or retrieves data in/from the database.
But who coordinates the DAOs? The Controller? No! The Model should.
Enter the Service layer. The Service layer will provide high service to the controller and will manage other (lower level) players (DAOs, other services etc) behind the scenes. It contains the business logic of your app.
What happens if you don't use it?
You will have to put the business logic somewhere and the victim is usually the controller.
If the controller is web centric it will have to receive its input and provide response as HTTP requests, responses. But what if I want to call my app (and get access to the business it provides) from a Windows application which communicates with RPC or some other thing? What then?
Well, you will have to rewrite the controller and make the logic client agnostic. But with the Service layer you already have that. Yyou don't need to rewrite things.
The service layer provides communication with DTOs which are not tied to a specific controller implementation. If the controller (no matter what type of controller) provides the appropriate data (no mater the source) your service layer will do its thing providing a service to the caller and hiding the caller from all responsibilities of the business logic involved.
I have to say I agree with dpb with the above, the wrapper i.e. Service Layer is reusable, mockable, I am currently in the process of including this layer inside my app... here are some of the issues/ requirements I am pondering over (very quickly :p ) that could be off help to youeself...
1. Multiple portals (e.g. Bloggers portal, client portal, internal portal) which will be needed to be accessed by many different users. They all must be separate ASP.NET MVC Applications (an important requirement)
2. Within the apps themselves some calls to the database will be similar, the methods and the way the data is handled from the Repository layer. Without doubt some controllers from each module/ portal will make exactly or an overloaded version of the same call, hence a possible need for a service layer (code to interfaces) which I will then compile in a separate class project.
3.If I create a separate class project for my service layer I may need to do the same for the Data Layer or combine it with the Service Layer and keep the model away from the Web project itself. At least this way as my project grows I can throw out the data access layer (i.e. LinqToSql -> NHibernate), or a team member can without working on any code in any other project. The downside could be they could blow everything up lol...
I have an ASP.NET MVC web app whose controllers use WCF to call into the domain model on a different server. The domain code needs to talk to a database and access to the database server isn't always possible from web servers (depends on the customer site) hence the use of WCF to get to a place where my code is allowed to connect to the database server.
This is configurable so if the controllers are able to access the database server directly then I use local instances of the domain objects rather than use WCF.
Lets say I have a page asking for person details like age, name etc. This is a complex type that is a parameter on my WCF operation like this :
[OperationContract]
string SayHello( Person oPerson);
When I generate the client code (eg; by adding a service reference in my client) I get a separate Person class that fulfills the wcf contract. The client, an MVC web app, can use this client Person class as the view model and all is well. I pass that straight into the WCF client methods and it all works brilliantly.
If my mvc client app is configured to NOT use WCF I have a problem. If I am calling my domain objects directly from the controller (assume I have a domain access factory/provider setup) then I need the original Person class and not the wcf generated Person class. This results in my problem which is that I will have to perform mapping from one object to another if I don't use WCF
The main problem with this is that there are many domain objects that will need to be mapped and errors may be introduced such as new properties forgotten about in future changes
I'm learning and experimenting with WCF and MVC can you help me know what my options are in this scenario? I'm sure there will be an easy way out of this given the extensibility of WCF and MVC
Thanks
It appears that you are not actually trying to use a service-oriented architecture. In this case, you can place the domain objects into a single assembly, and share it between the WCF service and the clients. When creating the clients, use "Add Service Reference", and on the "Advanced" tab, choose "Share Types". Either choose to share all types, or choose the list of assemblies whose types you want to share.
Sound service-oriented-architecture dictates that you use message based communication regardless of whether your service is on another machine, in another process, in another appdomain, or in your appdomain. You can use different endpoints with different bindings to take advantage of the speed of the link (http, tcp, named pipes) based on the location of your service, but the code using that service would remain the same.
This may not be the easiest or least time-consuming answer, but one thing you can do is avoid using the "add service reference" option, and then copy your contract interfaces to your MVC application and initiate the connection to WCF manually without automatically creating a service proxy. This will allow you to use one set of classes for your model objects and you can control explicitly when to use WCF or not.
There's a good series of webcasts on WCF by Michele Leroux Bustamante, and I think in episode 2, she explains how to do exactly this. Check it out here: http://www.dasblonde.net/WCFWebcastSeries.aspx
Hope this helps!
One sound option is that you always use WCF, even if client and server are in the same process, as Aviad points out.
Another option is to define the service contracts on interfaces, and to put these, together with the data contracts into an assembly that is shared between client and server. In the client, don't use svcutil or a service reference; instead, use ClientFactory<T>.
This way, your client code will use the same interfaces and classes as the server.
I am currently doing a CRUD project for school and basically they want us to have this kind of structure (3 projects):
Class Library
Contains all the data access logic (retrieving the data from the database with either LINQ of standard ADO.NET).
Web Service
Having a reference to the class library and offering [WebMethod]s that access the methods from the class library
ASP.NET Website
Having a service reference to the web service and using the WebMethods to retrieve the data
Which basically means that we cannot access the class library directly from the website:
Website
\
\
Web Service
\
\
Class Library
Now of course there are multiple solutions to choose from as to provide abstraction in the web service to separate for example methods that retrieve the articles and methods to retrieve the categories (which are two different entiries and have two seperate classes in the class libary):
I can either do one web service which will have all the methods (GetAllArticles, GetAllCategories, GetArticleByID, etc.) and the website only makes a reference to this one web service. But of course this will result in having all the methods in a single class (that is, a single web service)
Or I can create multiple web services (Articles.asmx, Categories.asmx etc...) and reference all of them from the website and then call the one I need depending on what data I need to retrieve.
But I mean for me, the above solutions are not really ideal because if I have the first solution, I will have a ton of methods all in one class (no abstraction whatsoever) and in the second solution, I will have to reference about 10 different web services from the website (one for articles, one for categories, etc.)
At school they told us to use the web service (or web services) to access the class library, and then retrieve the data from the class library using the Webmethods, but both solutions I mentioned earlier on seem a bit dodgy.
Is there a better way of how I might go about in implementing this structure?
In your example you suggested one service for Articles and one service for Categories. That may of course be just an example, but in that case it would not make sense to separate them, because it would be quite likely and common to have queries and/or routines which make use of both Category data and Article data.
With that in mind, it usually makes the most sense to group routines by the degree to which they are related to one another. If you can separate all your possible routines into, say, three clean groups with little to no overlap, then it makes sense to have three services. If you cannot cleanly separate any of your routines, you should limit yourself to one web service.
But regarding your statement "No abstraction" being a downside of one web service - that isn't necessarily true. You can always create layers of abstraction behind the web service, so that the service class itself is simply a facade with many thin method calls that reach into bulkier logic elsewhere.
In the end, the only approach which truly matters because it's the only approach which works is this: take the simplest approach possible, only build what you need to build in as few layers as you can; only add complexity when you reach a problem which cannot be solved in a better way than by adding that complexity. It is always easier to add complexity than to take it away.
I would put all the webmethods into the same class. The webmethods should only be wrappers around you business classes plus whatever input validation and authorisation you need.
Since web services are generally used by mahcines and not humans there is no pressing need for a hierarchy. It can become a burden to manage the URLs and web server if you create a webmethod class per business class.
If you are planning on using the HTML page that browsers automatically generate to call your web services as your main user interface you need to be a little bit careful. For example you won't be able to rely on SOAP headers if you need to authenticate requests.
Why not use ADO.Net Data Service?