The OutputCache attribute is commonly given as an example of a result filter in ASP.NET MVC. This MSDN page is one place. As such it wraps execution of the ActionResult object. But isn't that object executed at the end of the action method? I'm confused as to how it allows a cached response to be used and prevents the action itself from executing if it only wraps execution of the ActionResult at the end of that method. I know that caching works, so there is clearly some obvious piece that I'm missing.
The OutputCacheAttribute inherits from ActionFilterAttribute, which in turn implements IActionFilter, and IResultFilter. Thus the OutputCacheAttribute is both an action filter and a result filter.
When you think about it, this makes perfect sense. The logic behind a cache goes like this:
On execution
Is the item in the cache?
If Yes : return from cache (done)
If No, continue
Get result
On exiting
put in cache
return result
So part 1 is handled by the implementation of IActionFilter, if that doesn't immediately return a result, we continue with the action and the implementation of IResultFilter handles adding that result to the cache for future calls.
Thanks to ASP.NET being open source, this can be confirmed in code. Check out OutputCacheAttribute.cs on codeplex.
Line 222 is where the cahce is checked during OnActionExecuting (part of IActionFilter)
Line 237 - 249 the OnActionExecuting method sets up a callback that gets invoked during OnResultExecuted (part of IResultFilter)
Related
So, here's the rundown...
I've got a master layout page for my MVC 4 app that has some dynamic information and needs to be strongly typed to a specific domain entity to get that information. To keep my files cleaner, I've extracted out the typed fields to a partial view.
To grab the entity I need and map it to the partial's view-model, I have a LayoutController with an action that returns a Task<PartialViewResult>. This action uses a service layer to make an async call out to a Web API project, awaiting the entity. It massages that entity into the view-model and then returns PartialView("_LayoutPartial", viewModel).
From within the _Layout page, the partial is called via:
#{Html.RenderAction("LayoutInfo", "Layout", new { /*entity primary key*/ });}
I've stepped through the code and it does indeed get the correct entity back, but then after returning the partial view task, I get everybody's favorite Server Error page with the following error:
HttpServerUtility.Execute blocked while waiting for an asynchronous operation to complete.
I've done some Googling and SO searching and have no idea what this actually means. Am I thinking through this correctly?
That error message means that you're trying to invoke (and wait on!) an asynchronous method from within a synchronous method. In your specific case, the synchronous method is HtmlHelper.RenderAction, and the asynchronous method is your Task-returning action method. The reason the error occurs is that the point of writing an asynchronous Task-returning method is presumably to avoid blocking a thread, but RenderAction can't return until the Task is complete, so RenderAction ends up blocking while waiting for the operation to finish.
One option is to make the method that RenderAction calls synchronous instead of asynchronous, keeping in mind that this will continue to block the original thread. Another option is to populate the layout data asynchronously from within the original action method, then to pass that via ViewData to the layout page.
I'm rephrasing my existing question to a more generic one. I want to know if Velocity has got implicit object references like JSP does.
I'm particularly interested in knowing about the request object.
In JSP we can get the attribute in the request scope like <%= request.getAttribute("req1") %>
I know that JSP is a servlet and <%= request.getAttribute("req1") %> ends up as a part of _jspService() method which has the request object available to it before the scope of the request ends.
I'm not sure how Velocity works behind the scenes (it may be leaving the request object behind by the time it plays it role)
To test that I did the following thing which was a the part of my previous question.
I have a Spring MVC TestController in which I'm setting a request attribute. I'm using Velocity templates for rendering the views.
#RequestMapping(value="/test", method=RequestMethod.GET)
public ModelAndView display(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp){
...
req.setAttribute("req1", "This should be present for first request");
...
}
In the Velocity template I'm doing something like
Request: $request.getAttribute('req1')
but I'm not getting the value of req1. I know I should have put req1 in model map instead of request but I want to know about implicit request object ref.
I tried $req1 as well but its not working.
When I'm doing the same thing with the model and returning it back, everything is working correctly.
Where am I going wrong?
Update: The same thing is happening with req.getSession().setAttribute("req1", testObject) also.
Salaam,
req.getSession().getAttribute("req1", testObject) == $req1
AFAIK, you cannot access the request object at VelocityViewServlet's templates, unless you explicity set the request object in context or use a v-tool .
Take a look at this question: Velocity + Spring. The Spring folks haven't kept the integration with Velocity very up to date.
Once you've created that extension and set it up to be used properly in your servlet configuration, you'd be able to simply put the object on the ModelAndView and from there do whatever you need with it.
I made a custom handler that derives from MvcHandler. I have my routes using a custom RouteHandler that returns my new handler for GetHttpHandler(), and I override ProcessRequest() in my custom handler. The call to GetHttpHandler is triggering a breakpoint and my handler's constructor is definitely being called, but BeginProcessRequest() is being called on the base MvcHandler instead of ProcessRequest().
Why are the async methods being called when I haven't done anything to call them? I don't want asynchronous handling, and I certainly didn't do anything explicit to get it. My controllers all derive from Controller, not AsyncController.
I don't have the source code with me right now, but I can add it later if needed. I was hoping someone might know some of the reasons why BeginProcessRequest might be called when it's not wanted.
Brad Wilson responded to my post on the Asp.net forums with the following answer http://forums.asp.net/t/1547898.aspx:
Short answer: yes.
With the addition of AsyncController,
the MvcHandler class needs to be an
IHttpAsyncHandler now, which means
that as far as the ASP.NET core
runtime is concerned, the entry points
are now BeginProcessRequest and
EndProcessRequest, not ProcessRequest.
It sounds like ProcessRequest is not even called anymore, but I could be mistaken. I can say that I haven't seen it in my testing.
I am using methods with the Attribute [WebMethod] in my aspx pages. I don't use any asp.net ajax but jQuery to call these methods and return objects in JSON. This all works fine.
Next I added an authorization check inside the webMethod, if the current user doesn't have access to the feature I need to let the calling JavaScript know.
So I am throwing an AccessViolationException exception which can then be parsed by the OnError callback function in JavaScript. This works too but the exception includes the full StackTrace and I don't want to make this available to the calling client.
What other ways I could use to return an "Access Denied" to the client when the WebMethod returns a business object?
I'm using ASP.Net 3.5SP1 and jQuery 1.32
You can also add a:
customErrors mode="On"/
in your web.config, this will cut away the stack trace and leave you only the exception message
Why propagate errors through the wire? why not use an error response ?
Just wrap your object in a response object wich can contain an error code for status and an error message to present to users.
As suggested by NunFur I changed my approach and rather than throwing an error, I return a 'richer' object.
There are at least two options, the first one would be to encapsulate my business object into a response object with some status properties. I tried this but it makes the JSON more complicated.
So rather than adding a new object I added two properties to my business object, something like ServiceStatus and ServiceMessage. By default these are 200 and '', but can be set by the WebMethod code if anything goes wrong (no access, proper error). In this case they business object will be 'empty' (no data). The JavaScript code then first checks for the ServiceStatus and reacts appropriately.
I add the two fields to all my objects that are returned by WebMethods, even a simple string. They have to implement an Interface with those two properties.
Now I have complete control over that goes over the wire in case something unexpected is happening.
Thanks for the input
I save exceptions for when things go really wrong. (e.g. can't connect to the database)
Either return nothing (null/nill/whatever), or return a false bool value.
Sorry that I don't have a better answer than that...I'll have to keep looking myself.
You could look at SoapException: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.services.protocols.soapexception(VS.71).aspx
I'm just not sure, if it will work when it is called from JavaScript. Espeially if it's called with a get-request.
BTW AccessViolationException is to my best knowlegde ment to be thrown when the application is accessing memory it has no access to.
/Asger
All literature I see on creating custom handlers deals with associating an extension with a handler, e.g. if I wanted a handler for Ajax requests, I could implement the IHttpHandler interface in an AjaxHandler class.
Now, to have individual instances of AjaxHandlers, e.g. DocAjaxHander, PersonAjaxHandler etc. how would I derive the base AJAX handling of my AjaxHandler class without registering each individual *.ajax page?
It sounds like your assuming 1 HttpHandler = 1 Page or 1 Control, but as I understand, 1 HttpHandler can handle all pages of a certain file extension.
Your Question is not very clear, and your reponse to another answerer makes no sense...
"In fact, it seemed, to me, a lot like I was asking Http handlers, using a .ajax handler as an example."
But I shall assume you are thinking "DocAjaxHander" and "PersonAjaxHandler" should each be created for a "DocAjaxControl" and "PersonAjaxControl" respectively. I dont think that would be neccesary, 1 handler should be able to handle all your ajax requests if you choose to do it that way, but it doesn't feel like the most intuitive solution to me (using HttpHandlers), anyway, onto the details...
every IHttpHandler object needs to implement :
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
which allows :
context.Response.Write("Your JSON Response in here");
but at the level of 'ProcessRequest()', you have no access to the instance of the control which created the ajax call, or to the 'System.Web.UI.Page' object that holds the control, or anything.
context.Request
to the rescue! With the Request object above you can read QueryStrings, Sessions, an you can determine the path of the original HttpRequest (i.e. PersonAjaxObject may make an ajax call to 'myPersonobjPage.ajax' for its JSON data, but the '.ajax' extention lands the request at your custom http handler and it's ProcessRequest method.)
If I was you, and I was going to use an HttpHandler for my ajax calls, I'd use query string data to provide enough info for my handler to know 'what type of object am I responding too' as well as 'what data is that object requesting'.
Hope that helps.
You can automatically handle AJAX request in a number of ways. Here's how to do it with a web service:
http://www.asp.net/AJAX/Documentation/Live/Tutorials/ConsumingWebServicesWithAJAXTutorial.aspx
Well, one way to do it would be via query string params...