I'm developing a keyboard, so I'm implementing an InputMethodService. I have a requirement to add other features to this keyboard application but to separate it as another application in order to leave the keyboard as a lone keyboard implementation.
So I need to create a keyboard application and another application with all the other features (other features include but not limited to: a News Activity, a Messenger, a Lock Screen implementation and some Widgets).
Those two applications will need to communicate between them, from my research I found that there are several mechanisms I could use:
A Bounded Service
URI implementation
BroadcastReceivers
My question is: what would be the best implementation for my needs? Where my needs are to pass data from one application to another as well as starts activities and other components from one app in another.
After I made some research on this topic I found that there are several ways to do this operation:
Using Bounded Services that uses either a Messenger object to pass messages between the local process and the Remote Bounded Service or using AIDL to create an interface that will be passed from the Remote Bounded Service to the local process so that they can communicate.
The second options would be using the good old fashion BroadcastReceivers. That way as always it is possible to fire an Intent from the local process to the remote process and there receive some information.
The different for the usage of those both two would be decided by how strong would you like the connection to be between the two processes and how often should they be communicating. If they need to do one operation once in a while the BroadcastReceivers would be a perfectly good solution. But if you need a more consistent connection the Bounded Service is the way to go.
Related
I have been building .Net Web API's for years... normally I have one API that has 10 or so different controllers who handle everything from signing users up, handling business logic, payment, etc. Those all talk to class libraries to talk to the database and such. Nothing fancy, but it has been effective.
Fast forward to today... I am building a version 2 for an app that gets a good amount of traffic. I know my app is gonna get hit hard so I am looking for something with a foundation of efficiency and scale.
This has led me to embrace the coolness of Service Fabric and ASP.Net Core Web APIs. I have been reading lots of tutorials, articles, and SO questions and from what I understand, the beauty of Service Fabric is that it will spawn up multiple nodes in a single VM when things get busy.
So, if I maintain my normal pattern and make a single Web API with 10+ controllers, can Service Fabric do what it needs to do? Or am I supposed to create multiple little API's that are more focused so that the Service Fabric can add/remove them as things get busy?
That sounds like the right thing to do, and I have set up my code to do just that by putting my Models and Data classes in their own class libraries so they can be reused by the different API's, but I just wanted to double check before I do something potentially stupid.
If I split up, say each controller into its own Service Fabric service, will the Azure server be more efficient and scale better?
Nodes
In Service Fabric clusters (on Azure / stand alone) a Node equals a VM. If you increase the amount of machines, more Nodes appear in the cluster. (This is not the case for your local dev cluster.) Scaling in Azure Clusters is simple: just change the VMSS instance count.
Only if you configure Stateless Services with instance count -1, Service Fabric will spawn new instances of it. This is caused by the addition of nodes, not by load itself.
You can configure autoscaling for VMSS'es.
Web API
Service Fabric just tries to balance the load of all running SF Services across the available resources. That could be one instance of one service type on every node, or multiple instances of many types. So one service can just use all the resources of the node it's running on, like with IIS. (This is why Container support is coming by the way.)
Web API design isn't directly influenced by Service Fabric. The same rules apply as when running on IIS or elsewhere. It's really your choice.
Microservices
Your normal pattern will work. But making smaller services from it could help reduce the impact of changes. (At the cost of increased complexity.) Consider creating services that offer common functionality following the Microservices paradigm.
In Microservices, your code changes are scoped to smaller modules, less testing is needed, performance is less degraded during updates. This way, in theory, you can release new features in less time.
It depends.
If you have a natural division in your controllers regarding the resources they use then you may get some benefit if you split your services along that division line. Say service A uses lots of CPU and service B uses mostly HTTP then giving SF the ability to split CPU loads on their own may mean fewer affected HTTP calls.
You can optimize how SF distributes load by reporting load from inside your app but do so in the simplest way possible and don't add numerous dimensions, maybe one per service at most.
If all your controllers use the same type of resources roughly the same then there's no real benefit to splitting them away in separate services, just complications in code management, deployments and potentially inter-service communications.
This is a theoretical question.
imagine an aspnet website. by clicking a button site sends mail.now:
I can send mail async with code
I can send mail using QueueBackgroundWorkItem
I can call a ONEWAY webservice located in same website
I can call a ONEWAY webservice located in ANOTHER website (or another subdomain)
none of above solutions wait for mail operation to be completed.so they are fine.
my question is why I should use service solution instead of other solutions. is there an advantage ?
4th solution adds additional tcpip traffic to use service its not efficient right ?
if so, using service under same web site (3rd solution) also generates additional traffic. is that correct ?
I need to understand why people using services under same website ? Is there any reason besides make something available to ajax calls ?
any information would be great. I really need to get opinions.
best
The most appropriate architecture will depend on several factors:
the volume of emails that needs to be sent
the need to reuse the email sending capability beyond the use case described
the simplicity of implementation, deployment, and maintenance of the code
Separating out the sending of emails in a service either in the same or another web application will make it available to other applications and from client side code. It also adds some complexity to the code calling the service as it will need to deal with the case when the service is not available and handle errors that may occur when placing the call.
Using a separate web application for the service is useful if the volume of emails sent is really large as it allows to offload the work to one or servers if needed. Given the use case given (user clicks on a button), this seems rather unlikely, unless the web site will have really large traffic. Creating a separate web application adds significant development, deployment and maintenance work, initially and over time.
Unless the volume of emails to be sent is really large (millions per day) or there is a need to reuse the email capability in other systems, creating the email sending function within the same web application (first two options listed in the question) is almost certainly the best way to go. It will result in the least amount of initial work, is easy to deploy, and (perhaps most importantly) will be the easiest to maintain.
An important concern to pay significant attention to when implementing an email sending function is the issue of robustness. Robustness can be achieved with any of the possible architectures and is somewhat of an different concern as the one emphasized by the question. However, it is important to consider the proper course of action needed if (1) the receiving SMTP refuses the take the message (e.g., mailbox full; non-existent account; rejection as spam) and (2) an NDR is generated after the message is sent (e.g., rejection as spam). Depending on the kind of email sent, it may be OK to ignore these errors or some corrective action may be needed (e.g., retry sending, alert the user at the origination of the emails, ...)
We are applying unittests, integration tests and we are practicing test driven and behaviour driven development.
We are also monitoring our applications and servers from outside (with dedicated software in our network)
What is missing is some standard for a live monitoring inside the apllication.
I give an example:
There should be a cron-like process inside the application, that regularily checks some structural health inside our data structures
We need to monitor that users have done some regular stuff that does not endanger the health of the applications (there are some actions and input that we can not prevent them to do)
My question is, what is the correct name for this so I can further research in the literature. I did a lot of searching but I almosdt always find the xunit and bdd / integration test stuff that I already have.
So how is this called, what is the standard in professional application development, I would like to know if there is some standard structure like xunit, or could xunit libraries even bee used for it? I could not even find appropriate tagging for this question, so please if you read this and know some better tags, why not add them to this answer and remove the ones that don't fit.
I need this for applications written in python, erlang or javascript and those are mostly server side applications, web applications or daemons.
What we are already doing is that we created http gateway from inside the applications that report some stuff and this is monitored by the nagios infrastructure.
I have no problem rolling some cron-like controlled self health scheme inside the applications, but I am interested about knowing some professional standardized way of doing it.
I found this article, it already comes close: Link
It looks like you are asking about approaches how to monitor your application. In general, one can distinguish between active monitoring and passive monitoring.
In active monitoring, you create some artificial user load that would mimic real user behavior, and monitor your application based on these artificial responses from a non-existing user (active = you actively cause traffic to your application). Imagine that you have a web application which allows to get weather forecast for specific city. To have active monitoring, you will need to deploy another application that would call your web application with some predefined request ("get weather for Seattle") every N hours. If your application does not respond within the specified time interval, you will trigger alert based on that.
In passive monitoring, you observe real user behavior over time. You can use log parsing to get number of (un)successful requests/responses, or inject some code into your application that would update some values in database whenever successful or not successful response was returned (passive = you only check other users' traffic). Then, you can create graphs and check whether there is a significant deviation in user traffic. For example, if during the same time of the day one week ago your application served 1000 requests, and today you get only 200 requests, it may mean some problem with your software.
Maybe I just expected "three-tier architecture" to deliver a little more than just a clean separation of responsibilities in the source code (see here)...
My expectations to such a beast that can safely call its self "three-tier architecture" are a lot higher... so, here they are:
If you were to build something like a "three tier architecture" system but this time with these, additional requirements and constraints:
Up and running at all times from a Users point of viewExpect when the UI gets replacedWhen other parts of the system are down, the UI has to handle that
Never get into a undefined state or one from which the system cannot recover automatically
The system has to be "pausable"
The middle-tier has to contain all the business logic
Obviously using an underlying Database, itself in the data-tier (if you like)
The business logic can use a big array of core services (here in the data-tier, not directly accessible by the UI, only through business logic tier facade)
Can be unavailable at times
Can be available as many parallel running, identical processes
The UI's may not contain any state other than the session in case of web UI's and possibly transient view baking models
Presentation-tier, logic-tier and data/core-services-tier have to be scalable independently
The only thing you can take for granted is the network
Note: The mentioned "core services" are heavy-weight components that access various external systems within the enterprise. An example would be the connection to an Active Directory or to a "stock market ticker"...
1. How would you do it?
If you don't have an answer right now, maybe read on and let me know what you think about this:
Sync considered harmful. Ties your system together in a bad way (Think: "weakest link"). Thread blocked while waiting for timeout. Not easy to recover from.
Use asynchronous messaging for all inter-process communication (between all tiers). Allows to suspend the system anytime you like. When part of the system is down, no timeout happens.
Have central routing component where all requests get routed through and core services can register themselves.
Add heartbeat component that can e.g. inform the UI that a component is not currently available.
State is a necessary evil: Allow no state other than in the business logic tier. This way the beast becomes manageable. While the core services might well need to access data themselves, all that data should be fed in by the calling middle tier. This way the core services can be implemented in a fire and forget fashion.
2. What do you think about this "solution"?
I think that, in the real world, high-availability systems are implemented using fail-over: for example, it isn't that the UI can continue to work without the business layer, instead it's that if the business layer becomes unavailable then the UI fails over to using a backup instance of the business layer.
Apart from that, they might operate using store-and-forward: e.g. a mail system might store a piece of mail, and retransmit it periodically, if it can't deliver it immediately.
Yep its the way most large websites do it. Look at nosql databases, Google's bigtable architecture etc.
1. This is the general approach I'd take.
I'd use a mixture of memcached , a nosql-cloud (couch-db or mongo-db) and enterprise grade RDBMS systems (core data storage) for the data layer. I'd then write the service layer ontop of the data layer. nosql database API's are massively parallel (look at couchdb with its ngingx service layer parallizer). I'd then provide "oldschool each request is a web-page" generating web-servers and also direct access to the service layer for new style AJAX application; both these would depend on the service layer.
p.s. the RDBMS is an important component here, it holds the authoritative copy of the all the data in the memchached/nosql cloud. I would use an enterprise grade RDBMS to do data-centre to data-centre replication. I don't know how the big boys do their cloud based site replication, it would scare me if they did data-cloud to data-cloud replication :P
Some points:
yYu do not need heartbeat, with nosql
the approach taken is that if content
becomes unavailable, you regenerate it
onto another server using the
authoratitve copy of the data.
The burden of state-less web-design
is carried to the nosql and memcached
layer which is infinitely scalable.
So you do not need to worry about
this. Just have a good network
infrastructure.
In terms of sync, when you are
talking to the RDBMS you can expect
acceptable synchronous response
times. Your cloud you should treat as
an asynchronous resource, you will
get help from the API's that
interface with your cloud so you
don't even have to think about this.
Advice I can give about networking
and redundancy is this: do not go for
fancy Ethernet bonding, as its not worth
it -- things always go wrong. Just
set up redundant switches, ethernet cards
and have multiple routes to all your
machines. You can use OpenBSD and
CARP for your routers, as they work
great - routers are your worst point of failure -- openbsd solves this problem.
2. You've described the general components of a web 2.0 farm, so no comment:D
We have two client apps (a web app and an agent app) accessing methods on the same service, but with slightly different requirements. My team wants to control behaviour on the service side by passing in a ApplicationType parameter to every method - which is essentially an enum containing the name of the calling client application - which is then used as a key for a database lookup to configure the service with client-specific options.
Something about this makes me uneasy as I don't think the service should really have to be aware of which client is calling it. I'm being told that it's easier to do it this way than pass a load of options dynamically through the method call.
Is there anything wrong with the client application telling the service who they are? Or is there really no difference between passing a config key versus a set of parameterized options?
One immediate problem I can see is that if we ever opened the service to another client run by a third party, we'd have to maintain their configuration settings locally for them. At the moment we own both client apps so it's not so much of a problem.
How would you do it?
In a layered solution, you should always consider your layers as onion-like layers, and dependencies should always go inwards, never outwards.
So your GUI/App layer should depend on the businesslogic layer, the businesslogic layer should depend on the data access layer, and similar.
Unless you categorize the clients (web, win, wpf, cli), or generalize it with client profiles (which client applications can configure), I would never pass in the name of the calling application, as this would make the business logic layer aware of and dependent upon the outside layer.
What kind of differences are we talking about that would depend on the type of application? If you elaborate a bit on the differences here, perhaps someone can come up with some helpful advice on other ways to solve this.
But I would definitely look for other ways before going down your described path.
Can't you create two different services, one for each application? The two services will share a lot of code or call a single internal service with different parameterization depending on what outer service was called.
From a design perspective, this is no different than having users with different profiles. From a security perspective, I hope your applications are doing something to identify themselves, lest users of one application figure out a way to invoke the other applications logic as a hack. (Image a HR application being used by the mafia and a bank at the same time, one customer would be interesting in hacking the other customer's application on a shared application host)
In .net the design doesn't feel this way because the credentials live on the thread (i.e. when you set the IIPrincipal, that info rides on the thread-- it is communicated along with each method call, but not as a parameter.)
Maybe what you are looking for in terms of a more elegant design is an ApplicationIdentity attribute. You'd have to write a custom one, I don't know of one in the framework right now.
This is a hard topic to discuss without a solid example.
You are right for feeling that way. Sending in the client type to change behaviour is not correct. It's not a bad idea for logging... but that's about it.
Here is what I would do:
Review each method to see what needs to be different and why.
Create different methods for different usages. The method name should be self explanatory. If you ever need to break compatibility, you have more control (assuming you're not using a versioning system which would be overkill for an in-house-only service).
In some cases request parameters (flags/enum values) are more appropriate.
In some cases knowing the operating environment is more appropriate (especially for data security). The operating environment almost always sent during a login request. Something like "attended"/"secure" (agent client) vs "unattended"/"not secure" (web client). Now you must exchange a session key (HTTP cookie or an application level session id). Sessions obviously doesn't work if you need to be 100% stateless -- especially if you want to scale-out without session replication... if you have that requirement, send a structure in every request.
Think of requests like functions in your code. You wouldn't put a magic parameter that changes the behaviour of the function. You would create multiple functions that each behave differently. Whoever is using the function makes the decision which one to call.
So why is client type so wrong? Client type has no specific meaning on its own. It has many meanings and they may change over time. It's simply informational which is why it is a handy thing to log. An operating environment does have a specific meaning.
Here is a scenario to consider: What if a new client type is developed that is slightly different in a way that would break compatibility with the original request? Now you have two requests. 2 clients use Request A and 1 client uses Request B. If you pass in a client type to each request, the server is expected to work for every possible client type. Much harder to test and maintain!!