The middletier and edge tier are in separate folders and packages, so I can't simply call say a middletier class from an edgetier class. How do I communicate between these two tiers? Thanks.
In the said example both those components run on servers (Jetty and Netty). You should just pass REST calls between them to communicate. For instance, you can fire up both servers and then issue a GET request from one component to the other, and have the other listen for the request and perform actions accordingly. Hope this helps.
Related
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/
I am using the latest version of SignalR and Crank.
I want to use the standard switches to spin up multiple simulated clients. Thus: /NumClients:N and /ControllerUrl:URL. I don't understand why I have to specify the second option when I specify the number of clients, N. I see that a single "controller hub" is started, but I don't understand why. What is it's purpose? What is it controlling?
When you use multiple clients, you have to pick one client, which will be responsible for collection of information. To achieve this, Crank try to spin own mini hub to which all other clients will connect and report information (and if you don't provide ControllerUrl which has to create this internal hub will fail).
At least, this is what I understood from reading the code.
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 have two work flow that be hosted through WorkflowServiceHost and those contain some Receive activity that expose services to out.
some services that my workflowservices must expose is general, for example suppose there is a monitorring service that return Tracking Information about one wf instance.
Solution 1 : in any workflow definition there is a receive activity that return Tracking Information.
but i look for another solution without defining this functionality as activity.
notice that i dont want use another service to expose these functionality, i want expose these functionality in same work flow service
Tanks
(sorry for bad english writing)
If you want to expose everything as one service you have 2 options:
Add the tracking requests to the workflow service as you suggest
Create a wrapper service, a regular WCF .svc file, and forward the requests to the workflow as needed and handle the tracking outside of the workflow.
If you really want to expose just a single external service I would go for the second option. That said, I normally just expose 2 services as they are different things and services are for machine consumption and not human consumption so the 2 URL's are no problem.
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.