I have a table in MSSQL database, and I have an ASPX page, I need to push all new rows to the page in a descending order. I found this awesome tutorial which is using SignalR and SqlDependency and it shows only the last row descarding the previous rows which have been added when I'm online, it does that because it has a span element to show data and every time it overwrites this span, so I modified the JavaScript code to append the new data and it works fine.
The problem now is when I refreshed the page for the first time, I'll get the new rows twice, and if I refreshed the page again I'll get the new rows triple .. and so on.
The only solution is to close the application and reopen it again, it looks like reset the IIS.
So, what can I do to avoid duplicating data in the online show?
It is not a SignalR issue, that happens because the mentioned tutorial has a series of mistakes, the most evident being the fact that it continuously creates SqlDependency instances but then it trashes them without never unsubscribing from the OnChange event. You should start by adding something like this:
SqlDependency dependency = sender as SqlDependency;
dependency.OnChange -= dependency_OnChange;
before calling SendNotifications inside your event handler. Check this for some inspiration.
UPDATE (previous answer not fully accurate but kept in place for context)
The main problem here is that this technique creates a sort of auto-regenerating infinite sequence of SqlDependencies from inside instances of Web Forms pages, which makes them unreachable as soon as you page has finished rendering. This means, once your page lifecycle is complete and the page is rendered, the chain of dependencies stays alive and keeps on working even if the page instance which created has finished its cycle. The event handler also keeps the page instance alive even if unreachable, causing a memory leak.
The only way you can control this is actually to generate these chains somewhere else, for example within a static type you can call passing some unique identifier (maybe a combination of page name and username? that depends on your logic). At the first call it will do what currently happens in your current code, but as soon as you do another call with the same parameters it will do nothing, hence the previously created chain will go on being the only one notifying, with no duplicate calls.
It's just a suggestion, there would be many possible solutions, but you need to understand the original problem and the fact that it is practically impossible to remove those chains of auto-regenerating dependencies if you don't find a way to keep track of them and create them only when necessary. I hope that part is clear.
PS: this behavior is very similar to what you get sometimes with event handlers getting leaked and keeping alive objects which should be killed, this is what fooled me with the previous answer. It is in a way a similar problem (leaked objects), but with a totally different cause. The tutorial you follow does not clarify that and brings you to this situation where phantom code keeps on executing and memory is lost.
I got it, although I don't like this way absolutely, I have declared a static member in the Global.asax file and in the Page_Load event I checked its value, if it was true don't run a new instance of SqlDependency, otherwise run it.
if (!Global.PageIsFired)
{
Global.PageIsFired = true;
SqlDependency.Stop(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["db"].ConnectionString);
SqlDependency.Start(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["db"].ConnectionString);
SendNotifications();
}
Dear #Wasp,
Your last update helped me a lot to understand the problem, so thank you so much for your time and prompt support.
Dear #dyatchenko,
Thanks a lot for your comments, it was very useful too.
Related
I have a custom UITableViewCell, and when the user clicks a button i make a request to a server and update the cell. I do this with a NSUrlConnection and it all works fine (this is all done inside the cell class) and once it returns it fires a delegate method and the tableivew controller handles this. However when i create the cell in the tableview, i use the dequeue method and reuse my cells. So if a cell has fired a asynchronous nsurlconnection, and the cell gets reused whilst this is still going on, will this in turn erase the current connection? I just want to make sure that if the cell is reused, the actual memory that was assigned to the cell is still there so the connection can fulfil its duty??
You can customize the behavior of a UITableViewCell by subclassing it and overriding the -perpareForReuse method. In this case, I would recommend destroying the connection when the cell is dequeued. If the connection should still keep going, you’ll need to remove the reference to it (set it to nil) and handle its delegate methods elsewhere.
It's never a good idea to keep a reference of a connection or any data that you want to display in a cell, no matter how much of effort you put into it afterward to work around to arising problems. Your approach will never work reliable.
In your case, if the user quickly scrolls the table view up and down, your app will start and possibly cancel dozens of connections and yet never finishes to load something. That will be an awful user experience, and may crash the app.
Better you design your app with MVC in mind: the cell is just a means to display your model data, nothing else. It's the View in this architectural design.
For that purpose the Table View Delegate needs to retrieve the Model's properties which shall to be displayed for a certain row and setup the cell. The model encapsulates the network connection. The Controller will take the role to manage and update change notification and process user inputs.
A couple of Apple samples provide much more details about this topic, and there is a nice introduction about MVC, please go figure! ;)
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/general/conceptual/devpedia-cocoacore/MVC.html
The "Your Second iOS App: Storyboards" also has a step by step explanation to create "Data Controller Classes". Quite useful!
Now, when using NSURLConnection which updates your model, it might become a bit more complex. You are dealing with "lazy initializing models". That is, they may provide some "placeholder" data when the controller accesses the property instead of the "real" data when is not yet available. The model however, starts a network request to load it. When it is eventually loaded, the model must somehow notify the Table View Controller. The tricky part here is to not mess with synchronization issues between model and table view. The model's properties must be updated on the main thread, and while this happens, it must be guaranteed that the table view will not access the model's properties. There are a few samples which demonstrate a few techniques to accomplish this.
On a new website, I've an huge formular(meaning really big, needs at least 15-20min to finish it), that configure the whole website for one client for the next year.
It's distributed between several tabs(it's a wizard). Every time we go to the next tab, it makes a regular(non ajax) call to the server that generate the next "page". The previous informations are stored in the session(an object with a custom binder).
Everything was working fine until we test it today with all real data. Real data needs reflexion, work to find correct elements, ... And it takes times.
The problem we got is that the View receive a Model partialy empty. The session duration is set to 1440 minutes(and in IIS too). For now what I know is that I get a NullException the first time I try to access the Model into my view.
I'm checking the controller since something like 1 hour, but it's just impossible it gives a null model. If I put all those data very fast, I don't have any problem(but it's random data).
For now I did only manage to reproduce this problem on the IIS server, and I'm checking elmah logs to debug it, so it's not so easy to reproduce it.
Have you just any idea about how should I debug this? I'm a little lost here
I think you should assume session does not offer reliable persistence. I am not sure about details but I guess it will start freeing some elements when it exceeds its memory limit.
You will be safer if you use database to store that information or you could introduce your own implementation for persisting state.
in addition to ans provided by #Ufuk
you can easily send an ajax request every 1 minute which would actually do nothing but by doing this the session wont get expired and site will continue to run in extended periods
The problem was that the sessions wasn't having enough space I think. I resolved temporary my problem by restarting the application pool. Still searching a solution that will not implies to changes all this code. Maybe with other mode of session states, but I need to make my models serializable.
Afternoon all,
I'm currently profiling a rather large C# WPF app, trying to eliminate a few performance issues. One involves a 5-8 second stall that occurs when switching to a particular (rather large) UserControl. I've narrowed this down to a RadGridView contained in this UserControl that's taking a long time to load and update itself, stalling the UI thread and making the entire application unresponsive. Obviously, we'd like to eliminate this stall if possible.
I have tried stripping away any custom styles and DataTriggers on the grid, but while this acted to reduce load on the UI thread in general, the stall still remained, seemingly undiminished. Through ANTS Profiler, it seems that the measuring and layout of the grid is mostly to blame, along with some loading of XAML templates. With no grid rows, the UserControls loads significantly faster, and it seems that adding just a small number of rows is enough to bring about this stall. The grid has virtualization enabled for rows and columns, but this doesn't seem to help. The call graph is tremendously deep when examined, and it seems to be calls that raise update notifications, update layout, load XAML and, above all, measure child FrameworkElements that are to blame.
For a couple of potential solutions, I'm thinking about keeping the UserControl in memory but hidden to reduce the costs of switching to it, or populating the grid, perhaps incrementally, well after the UserControl has loaded. There might be a lot of work with the former, as the control subscribes to a number of things, which would need to be connected to, disconnected from and reconnected to as appropriate. The latter might also involve a fair bit of work, but might be a better solution, because then at least we could try to mitigate the stalling ourselves, or at least warn the user when it was occurring.
If the problem persists, we're likely to ask Telerik to have a look at it, but I thought I'd ask here first in case anyone has encoutered such an issue before (not necessarily with RadGridView, even) and found a solution of some description.
Cheers.
The problem is you need a collection that implements ICollectionChanged properly.
Try this after adding all records to your source collection (one which should NOT raise any CollectionChanged events after each add), it works:
public void AddRange(List<TValue> values, int startingIndex)
{
// add all the items to your internal list, but avoid raising events.
// now raise CollectionChanged with an IList type.
CollectionChanged?.Invoke(collection, new NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs(NotifyCollectionChangedAction.Add, addedValues, startingIndex));
}
Notice we're passing IList<TValue>, NOT TValue. When it sees a list, it adds them ALL before processing. The startingValue is usually the .Count of the list before you started adding items.
Steps:
Subclass a collection type that doesn't already implement INotifyCollectionChanged. Plenty of open source examples are out there.
Add the method above and use it after you've added your items.
My RadGridView is binding against a QueryableCollectionView which uses this list as its SourceCollection. I don't know if you can bind against this list directly.
One strange behavior with RadGridView is that if you add say, a million records this way, it WILL be quick, but all the new rows will be blank, and you can watch RadGridView slowly populate them with data from the topmost new item down. My solution to this is to bind against QueryableCollection and set its PageSize sufficiently small so the users don't see this.
In a web application, I need the SessionID for some reason, so, I save it in the database. the application does two redirects before it starts, and I found that it acquires two SessionIDs. The second one remains.
Why this behavior ? Any idea? How can I prevent that to save in the DB one record.
Sorry because I can't post code, it's compound with another logic.
There's a million possible reasons for losing / re-starting your session. Without your code, its difficult to offer advice.
One thing you can try on your own is to use the Session_End event in your global.asax file, as long as you're using inProc session. Put some code in there to have it tell you when the session ends, so you can track-down the problem / what's causing it to end in your application.
Another think you can look at is your method of redirecting. Make sure you're preserving the session, like this: Response.Redirect("~/default.aspx", false).
Another possibility is that you might not be putting anything into your first session. By default, you'll get a new sessionID on each postback unless you put something in the session.
I have a ASPX page which queries from a database. Once we have the dataset it is bound to a gridview and displayed on the page. All this happens in the Page_Load event.
Ofcourse this a simplistic approach. What is the best way to inform the user that data is being retrieved and when we have the data to update the page with the results in the dataset.
I want all this to happen within the same ASPX page and do not want to hop around pages to achieve this. I looked at update panels however it wasn't clear to me how this could be done with an update panel without having a control which triggers the update for the update panel. There are no controls on my page whhich initiate the database query, it occurs as the page is loaded.
If I do the query in a worker thread and then call the Update method on a UpdatePanel with the gridview as part of it, it doesn't work. Nothing happens.
Any thoughts or help? Thanks.
Well, this is a good question. Personally I have two pretty similar methods to do this:
Have a java script that will make an UpdatePanel reload with a short interval. This will create a series of post-backs to the server. During each post-back you should chek you worker thread and return immediately with the state report, usually one of error, pending, success + data
With a java script, make an asynchronous request to a web-service that will block until the data is fetched. This method brings no latency as compared to the previous one (the time between polls), but may suffer from some browsers/servers attitude to hanging open connections. This is normally solved by some interval (say, 1 minute) introduced, so that the hanging request will return with a message like need more time, in which case the java script should simply repeat the request.