i have a bit theoretical question.
When creating web applications, there is difference to desktop applications with working and active connection to database. So im curious if there is some solution, which can provide more desktop-like access to database e.g. transactions on asynchronous requests from client (web browser)?
edit:
So i figured out, that there can be a transaction process of asynchronous request, from client. Is there solution, which can provide it in web apps?
e.g I have assynchronou ajax call, which consist of multiple operations, and i wana to process them as transaction. If everything is okay, operations will be all done. But if one of them fail, just rollback it. Like its in DB. Is it possible?
edit2: maybe im wrong and the issue is not about ajax, but about whole web applications, but i dont think there is a way how to make a asynchronnous request from web client.
Transaction need continuous connection to database. To make it work with web application you need a platform which allow the application to run continuously independent of client request. Java servlet is best fit, php is a no-no. So I asume you will use java servlet.
In java servlet, you can create a db transaction, create an id for it, and then store them in a static variable or in the provided application-wide object, context. Then, return the id to the client.
When the client want to send another request, make it send the id. The application then can locate the transaction variable based on the id. As long as the application doesn't restarted between the two requests, the transaction is still there and active.
Because web application don't know when the user leave the application, you must create a mechanism to check the transactions periodically, and then rollback it if the user leave them for a specified time period.
The database has no knowledge of who is connected outside of authentication.
Related
I'm designing a database monitoring application. Basically, the database will be hosted in the cloud and record-level access to it will be provided via custom written clients for Windows, iOS, Android etc. The basic scenario can be implemented via web services (ASP.NET WebAPI). For example, the client will make a GET request to the web service to fetch an entry. However, one of the requirements is that the client should automatically refresh UI, in case another user (using a different instance of the client) updates the same record AND the auto-refresh needs to happen under a second of record being updated - so that info is always up-to-date.
Polling could be an option but the active clients could number in hundreds of thousands, so I'm looking for a more robust and lightweight (on server) solution. I'm versed in .NET and C++/Windows and I could roll-out a complete solution in C++/Windows using IO Completion Ports but feel like that would be an overkill and require too much development time. Looked into ASP.NET WebAPI but not being able to send out notifications is its limitation. Are there any frameworks/technologies in Windows ecosystem that can address this scenario and scale easily as well? Any good options outside windows ecosystem e.g. node.js?
You did not specify a database that can be used so if you are able to use MSSQL Server, you may want to lookup SQL Dependency feature. IF configured and used correctly, you will be notified if there are any changes in the database.
Pair this with SignalR or any real-time front-end framework of your choice and you'll have real-time updates as you described.
One catch though is that SQL Dependency only tells you that something changed. Whatever it was, you are responsible to track which record it is. That adds an extra layer of difficulty but is much better than polling.
You may want to search through the sqldependency tag here at SO to go from here to where you want your app to be.
My first thought was to have webservice call that "stays alive" or the html5 protocol called WebSockets. You can maintain lots of connections but hundreds of thousands seems too large. Therefore the webservice needs to have a way to contact the clients with stateless connections. So build a webservice in the client that the webservices server can communicate with. This may be an issue due to firewall issues.
If firewalls are not an issue then you may not need a webservice in the client. You can instead implement a server socket on the client.
For mobile clients, if implementing a server socket is not a possibility then use push notifications. Perhaps look at https://stackoverflow.com/a/6676586/4350148 for a similar issue.
Finally you may want to consider a content delivery network.
One last point is that hopefully you don't need to contact all 100000 users within 1 second. I am assuming that with so many users you have quite a few servers.
Take a look at Maximum concurrent Socket.IO connections regarding the max number of open websocket connections;
Also consider whether your estimate of on the order of 100000 of simultaneous users is accurate.
I have a client-server web application - the client is HTML/JS and the server is ASP.Net. web application hosted by Azure Web Role
In this application the client can save a document on the server by calling a web service method on the server side.
After calling the saving method, the client might save the document again while the server processes his previous save request. In this case I want the newly initiated saving to be queued until the previous saving operation is completed.
If I had a single web role instance, it would be easy for me to implement this by thread synchronization, but since the client request might be handled by different web role instances, the synchronization is problematic.
My question is - how can I implement such synchronization mechanism, or is there a better way to get the same result, that I'm not aware of.
Thanks.
I would consider combination of storage or service bus queues to queue up the requests to process the documents AND using BLOB leases to mark the work as in progress.
Queuing would be important since the requests might be delayed in processing if there is a previous request for the same job that's on going.
BLOB Leasing is a way to put a centralized lock in storage. Once you start processing of a request, you can put a blob with a lease on it and release the lease once you're done. Requests for the same work would check first if the lease is available before kicking off. Otherwise, they could just wait. More info on leases here: http://blog.smarx.com/posts/leasing-windows-azure-blobs-using-the-storage-client-library
Have you looked into using the Windows Azure Cache - Co-Located on your roles?
This is a shared caching layer that can use excess memory on your roles (Or have it's own worker role if your web roles are already close to capacity) to create a key / value store which can be accessed by any role on the same deployment.
You could use the cache to store a value indicating a document is currently being processed and block it until the document has finished uploaded. As it is a shared caching layer the value will be persisted across your instances (Though the cache will not persist during an upgrade deployment).
Here's a good introductary article to using Caching in Azure with configuration examples and sample code.
Most if not all of the NSB examples for ASP.NET (or MVC) have the web application sending a message using Bus.Send and possibly registering for a simple callback, which is essentially how I'm using it in my application.
What I'm wondering is if it's possible and/or makes any sense to handle messages in the same ASP.NET application.
The main reason I'm asking is caching. The process might go something like this:
User initiates a request from the web app.
Web app sends a message to a standalone app server, and logs the change in a local database.
On future page requests from the same user, the web app is aware of the change and lists it in a "pending" status.
A bunch of stuff happens on the back-end and eventually the requests gets approved or rejected. An event is published referencing the original request.
At this point, the web app should start displaying the most recent information.
Now, in a real web app, it's almost a sure thing that this pending request is going to be cached, quite possibly for a long period of time, because otherwise the app has to query the database for pending changes every time the user asks for the current info.
So when the request finally completes on the back-end - which might take a minute or a day - the web app needs, at a minimum, to invalidate this cache entry and do another DB lookup.
Now I realize that this can be managed with SqlDependency objects and so on, but let's assume that they aren't available - perhaps it's not a SQL Server back-end or perhaps the current-info query goes to a web service, whatever. The question is, how does the web app become aware of the change in status?
If it is possible to handle NServiceBus messages in an ASP.NET application, what is the context of the handler? In other words, the IoC container is going to have to inject a bunch of dependencies, but what is their scope? Does this all execute in the context of an HTTP request? Or does everything need to be static/singleton for the message handler?
Is there a better/recommended approach to this type of problem?
I've wondered the same thing myself - what's an appropriate level of coupling for a web app with the NServiceBus infrastructure? In my domain, I have a similar problem to solve involving the use of SignalR in place of a cache. Like you, I've not found a lot of documentation about this particular pattern. However, I think it's possible to reason through some of the implications of following it, then decide if it makes sense in your environment.
In short, I would say that I believe it is entirely possible to have a web application subscribe to NServiceBus events. I don't think there would be any technical roadblocks, though I have to confess I have not actually tried it - if you have the time, by all means give it a shot. I just get the strong feeling that if one starts needing to do this, then there is probably a better overall design waiting to be discovered. Here's why I think this is so:
A relevant question to ask relates to your cache implementation. If it's a distributed or centralized model (think SQL, MongoDB, Memcached, etc), then the approach that #Adam Fyles suggests sounds like a good idea. You wouldn't need to notify every web application - updating your cache can be done by a single NServiceBus endpoint that's not part of your web application. In other words, every instance of your web application and the "cache-update" endpoint would access the same shared cache. If your cache is in-process however, like Microsoft's Web Cache, then of course you are left with a much trickier problem to solve unless you can lean on Eventual Consistency as was suggested.
If your web app subscribes to a particular NServiceBus event, then it becomes necessary for you to have a unique input queue for each instance of your web app. Since it's best practice to consider scale-out of your web app using a load balancer, that means that you could end up with N queues and at least N subscriptions, which is more to worry about than a constant number of subscriptions. Again, not a technical roadblock, just something that would make me raise an eyebrow.
The David Boike article that was linked raises an interesting point about app pools and how their lifetimes might be uncertain. Also, if you have multiple app pools running simultaneously for the same application on a server (a common scenario), they will all be trying to read from the same message queue, and there's no good way to determine which one will actually handle the message. More of then than not, that will matter. Sending commands, in contrast, does not require an input queue according to this post by Udi Dahan. This is why I think one-way commands sent by web apps are much more commonly seen in practice.
There's a lot to be said for the Single Responsibility Principle here. In general, I would say that if you can delegate the "expertise" of sending and receiving messages to an NServiceBus Host as much as possible, your overall architecture will be cleaner and more manageable. Through experience, I've found that if I treat my web farm as a single entity, i.e. strip away all acknowledgement of individual web server identity, that I tend to have less to worry about. Having each web server be an endpoint on the bus kind of breaks that notion, because now "which server" comes up again in the form of message queues.
Does this help clarify things?
An endpoint(NSB) can be created to subscribe to the published event and update the cache. The event shouldn't be published until the actual update is made so you don't get out of sync. The web app would continue to pull data from the cache on the next request, or you can build in some kind of delay.
Let's say you have a bunch of threads that all call into the same ASP.NET webservice from a website. I wondered if anyone knows how these calls would get handled at the webservice site? Is all synchronization taken care of? Do these calls just get called in order?
Can anyone shed some light.
They're handled by the web server just like any other web request. You don't need any synchronization you wouldn't need in a regular website (and if you need it, performance will be the first to die under load). There are no guarantees of order. The requests are served as they come and the responses returned as they complete.
As far as I know for each call there is a new service created. If you have access to any database or filesystem. you need to handle. In any other way you don't need to care about it. If you use SQL or MySQL multithreading should be supportable too.
Concurrent transactions and multi-threaded database access in embedded SQL applications
I have a data entry and editing form and in every data entry or update event, I have to send an email to a dynamic list of recipients. I have been sending the email as soon as the user clicks the save or edit buttons but am thinking of first saving the data to the database, and then sending the email later. I want to do this partly to improve the response time of the application as the email sending tends to take a long time than desired.
Has any one done some thing some how related to this, is there a better way of implementing something similar or does one know a good tutorial on such.
The email body is html formatted.
You could write a Windows Service that handles sending your emails, then use a Message Queue as the method of passing data from your application to the service. I.e. your applicaiton saves the data, then adds a message to the Queue. The service continually polls the queue for messages, sending each one as an email.
I agree with ck about using a service and a message queue, but there are some alternatives.
One is to use a service that polls the database at a regular interval. This lets you avoid the message queue at the cost of a higher cpu load (the service will do many unnecessary database calls).
You could also do this directly in the database using either a database trigger or a scheduled job in the database. The latest versions of SQL Server supports running stored procedures written in C# or Vb.Net so you could probably reuse much of your existing code here.
Finally you could go for a simple solution where you do the email sending on a separate thread in your asp.net application. This way you avoid the need of a service application and you can reuse your code more or less as it is today.
One way to do this is write to the database, and then put a message on a queue that tells an email service (written as a Windows service) that there are emails to send. The email service then talks to the database to find what it actually needs to do. This decouples the email service from the web application and also avoids polling.
This is slightly different to ck's solution in that the queue message is used as a trigger rather than containing the email information. This decouples the web app and the email service to some extent, and means the email service can be reused by multiple clients without each client having to observe (and keep in step with) the same email message format.