How thread safe are private member variables across wcf tiers? [closed] - asp.net

Question

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
At work, our service calls follow the pattern of:
Create a proxy that allows you to hit a service on our business tier
upon hitting the service, it creates a new response instance
instantiates a new instance of one of our business code classes
Assigns the result of calling whatever function on the new instance to the response
Returns the response back through the proxy
So it always looks like this:
Dim someRequest as Request = CreateSomeSortOfRequest()
Dim results as Response = Nothing
using proxy as IResultProxy = OurLibrary.Proxy(Of IResultProxy).Create()
results = proxy.GetResults(request)
End Using
Then:
Dim results as Response = Nothing
Using whateverBusiness as new BusinessClass
results = whateverBusiness.ComputeWhatever(request)
End Using
Return results
Pretty basic stuff, right? Well the guys who have worked there for a little over 20 years now will go on and on about how none of these business classes should ever have any member variables of any kind. Ever. Wanna perform some really complicated operation? Better be prepared to pass 10 to (and I've seen it) 30 parameters.
All of this, to me, seems like bad practice. As long as you remain in that narrow scope, hand off a request to a new instance of a business class, ask it to perform whatever, it performs whatever logic necessary within itself, return the result, and carry on with your day.
I've investigated and we only ever use threading ourselves in one location in the system, and that just fires off different service calls (all of which follow the above pattern). We don't use instance pools, static variables, or anything else like that, especially since we have the above stated issue that we have a running belief that there should never be any class scoped variables.
Am I crazy for thinking that having these classes with extremely tight and locked down entry points (i.e. no outside access to internal variables) is perfectly fine, especially since there is no way to access the instances of the business class outside the scope of the service call? Or are my elders correct for stating that any private member variable in a class is non-threadsafe and should never be used?
I guess I should mention that the business classes pretty much always load some data from the database, try to piece that data together into, often, very deep hierarchal structures, then return (or the opposite; taking the object, breaking it apart, and performing, sometimes, hundreds of database calls to save).

Answer 1

Wanna perform some really complicated operation? Better be prepared to pass 10 to (and I've seen it) 30 parameters
Sounds like they don't want any state (public anyway) on their business classes, an understandably noble vision as it is but rarely does it prove to be useful or practical as a general rule. Instead of 30 parameters, maybe they should pass in a struct or request class.
You could point out to them that in their effort to prevent state, that 10-30 parameters comes with its own set of problems.
As stated in the documentation for the brilliant code analysis tool nDepend:
nDepend:
NbParameters: The number of parameters of a method. Ref and Out are also counted. The this reference passed to instance methods in IL is not counted as a parameter.
Recommendations: Methods where NbParameters is higher than 5 might be painful to call and might degrade performance. You should prefer using additional properties/fields to the declaring type to handle numerous states. Another alternative is to provide a class or structure dedicated to handle arguments passing (for example see the class System.Diagnostics.ProcessStartInfo and the method System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(ProcessStartInfo)) - Holy swiss cheese Batman, tell me more.
It's arguably no different to when the client passes a request object to the WCF service. You are passing request objects aren't you?
OP:
Am I crazy for thinking that having these classes with extremely tight and locked down entry points (i.e. no outside access to internal variables) is perfectly fine
OK it sounds like the system has been around for a while and has had some best practices applied by your elders during its construction. That's good. However such a system is arguably only going to continue being robust as someone follows what-ever rules that were setup...and from what you say sound quite bizarre and somewhat ill-informed.
It might also be an example of accidental architecture where the system is just because it is.
e.g. if someone goes and adds a public method and say some public properties or makes what was a private field public is likely to upset the applecart.
I once had the misfortune of working on a legacy system and though it appeared to run without incident, it was all rather fragile due to the exorbitant amount of public fields. (mind you this was c++!)
Someone could have said:
"well don't touch the public fields"
to which I could reply:
"well maybe we shouldn't make the fields public"
Hence their desire to have no instance fields. The notion that c# classes with "member variables of any kind" is naughty is not the real source of concern. Instead I suspect the problem is that of thread safety and for that they should be looking into how the caller or callers be made thread-safe not the business class in this case.
Enforcing thread safety by not having state, though effective is kind of a sledgehammer approach and tends to annoy other parts of OO sub-systems.
WCF Threading Models
It sounds to me they are performing applying old-school threading protection in WCF where WCF has it's own way of guaranteeing thread-safety in a way quite similar to how the Apartment model was successful for COM.
Instead of worrying about lock()s; and synchronisation, why not let WCF serialise calls for you:
[ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerSession,
ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Single)]
public partial class MyService: IMyService, IDisposable
{
// ...
}
InstanceContextMode.PerSession essentially tells WCF to create a unique private instance of the service per client proxy. Got two clients calling? Well that means two instances of MyService will be created. So irrespective of what instance members this class has its guaranteed not to trod on the other instance. (note I don't refer to statatics here)
ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Single tells WCF that calls to this service instance must be serialised one after the other and that concurrent calls to the service are not allowed. This ties in with the InstanceContextMode setting.
Just by setting these two but very powerful settings in WCF you have told it to not only create private instances of your WCF service such that multiple clients can't trod on it, but that even if the client shared it's client proxy in a thread and attempted to call one particular service instance concurrently, WCF guarentees that calls to the service will be serialised safely.
What does this mean?
Feel free to add instance fields or properties to your service class
such members won't be trodden on by other threads
when using WCF, there is generally no need for explicit thread locking in your service class (depending on your app, this could apply to subsequent calls. see below)
It does not mean that per-session-single services only ever allow one client at a time. It means only one call per client proxy at a time. Your service will most likely have multiple instances running at a particular moment having a jolly good time in the knowledge that one can't throw stones at the other.
Roll-on effects
As long as you remain in that narrow scope, hand off a request to a new instance of a business class
Since WCF has established a nice thread-safe ecosystem for you, it has a nice follow-on effect elsewhere in the call-stack.
With the knowledge that your service entry point is serialised, you are free to instantiate the business class and set public members if you really wanted to. It's not as if another thread can access it anyway.
Or are my elders correct for stating that any private member variable in a class is non-threadsafe
That depends entirely on how the class is used elsewhere. Just as a well designed business processing layer should not care whether the call stack came from WCF; a unit test; or a console app; there may be an argument for threading neutrality in the layer.
e.g. let's say the business class has some instance property. No drama, the business class isn't spawning threads. All the business class does is fetch some DB data; has a fiddle and returns it to the caller.
The caller is your WCF service. It was the WCF service that created an instance of the business class. But what's that I hear you say - "the WCF service instance is already thread-safe!" Exactly right and thank-you for paying attention. WCF already set up a nice thread safe environment as mentioned and so any instance member in the business class shouldn't get obliterated by another thread.
Our particular WCF thread is the only thread that is even aware of this particular business class's instance.
Conclusion
Many classes in .NET have state and many of those are in private fields. That doesn't mean it's bad design. It's how you use the class that requires thought.
A WinForms Font or Bitmap object has both state; I suspect even with private members; and shouldn't arguably be fiddled with concurrently by multiple threads. That's not a demonstration of poor design by Microsoft's part rather something that should have state.
That's two classes created by people much smarter than you, me and your elders I suspect, in a codebase larger than anything we will ever work on.
I think it is fantastic that you are questioning your elders. Sometimes we don't always get it right.
Keep it up!
See Also
Lowy, Juval, "Programming WCF Services: Mastering WCF and the Azure AppFabric Service Bus", Amazon. The WCF bible - a must read for prior to any serious dabbling into WCF goodness
nDepend, a truly marvelous and powerful code analysis tool. Though one may be forgiven into thinking it's a FxCop-type-tool and though it does support such a feature, it does that and more. It analyses your entire Visual Studio solution (and stand-alone libraries if you wish) investigating coupling for one and excessive use of parameters as another. Be prepared for it pointing out some embarrassing mistakes made by the best of us.
Comes with some groovy charts too that look impressive on any dashboard screen.