I've followed this link http://spring.io/guides/gs/messaging-stomp-websocket/ and got the app up and running.
What I wanted was a little more than that, I wanted to to be able to push the data back to the client without the client having to send any thing.
So I've setup a long running task with a listener similar to the below
GreetingController implements RunnableListener
and the RunnableListener has a method
public Greeting greeting(HelloMessage message);
The implementation of the method is to kick off a thread and then call the listener method..
I see the output on the console when that happens, but I don't see anything on the browser.
Could anyone please show me how to kick off a running task and let the server push the content to the browser using Spring instead of poll (setTimeout stuff in javascript?)
Regards
Tin
What is this RunnableListener interface?
What is triggering this task - is it scheduled regularly?
Once the client has subscribed to a given topic (here, /topic/greetings), you can send messages to that topic whenever you want using a MessagingTemplate. For example, you could schedule this task and let it send messages regularly on a given topic:
#Service
public class GreetingService {
private SimpMessagingTemplate template;
#Autowired
public GreetingService(SimpMessagingTemplate template) {
this.template = template;
}
#Scheduled(fixedDelay=10000)
public void greet() {
this.template.convertAndSend("/topic/greetings", "Hello");
}
}
Check out the reference documentation for more details.
Related
I've been pouring through documentation and forums trying to understand SignalR but I'm pretty stuck.
What I'm trying to achieve is, in a chat application: store messages outside of the Hub so that each time a user joins the chat, they can see all messages that had been sent before they joined.
So it seemed like an external class was the way to do that so I got that working with dependency injection
In ChatHub.cs
namespace SignalRChat.Hubs
{
public class ChatHub: Hub
{
public IChatStorage _chatStorage;
public ChatHub(IChatStorage chatStorage)
{
_chatStorage = chatStorage;
}
// and so on
And I have a method in ChatHub to send a message to chatStorage, but I'm confused on how to send back a list of all messages from chatStorage to ChatHub, or even to JavaScript. It seemed like a Controller was the way to do that but I'm not sure how to call the controller's methods:
namespace SignalRChat.Controllers
{
public class ChatController: Controller
{
private IHubContext<ChatHub> _hubContext;
public ChatController(IHubContext<ChatHub> hubContext)
{
_hubContext = hubContext;
}
public void Send(List<Message> messages)
{
// to do: something where chatStorage calls this method, then this
// method uses _hubContext.Clients.All.SendAsync
// But, how do I even call Send()???
}
}
}
Fundamentally I just don't understand how to wire everything up. SignalR is just really confusing.
I get how the simple server Hub and client JavaScript relationship works. But, then with dependency injection I don't get why
public ChatHub(IChatStorage chatStorage)
{
_chatStorage = chatStorage;
}
works. I didn't change any code to say like new ChatHub(new IChatStorage). Microsoft's docs even say that SignalR only calls default Hub constructors.
In Startup.cs nothing seems to specify that I want to call ChatHub with a new chatStorage:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddRazorPages();
services.AddSignalR();
services.AddSingleton<IChatStorage, ChatStorage>();
services.AddSingleton<ChatController>();
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env)
{
// omitted some default code
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
endpoints.MapRazorPages();
endpoints.MapHub<ChatHub>("/chatHub");
});
}
So first question, how does that work? How does it know to pass an argument to the ChatHub constructor? I understand the services.AddSingleton part, just not how that gets "wired up".
Same thing with a controller class. How does the program know to pass an IHubContext object into its constructor? Where do you specify that?
Finally, how would you go about making this setup work? Current I'm trying to communicate from ChatHub->chatStorage->ChatController->ChatHub. And to do that I'm trying to pass a reference to chatController in chatStorage.
Not sure if it's clear what I'm asking. If anything I'm looking for a clear explanation on how these concepts all work together, rather than a specific solution to my code.
Thank you!
So first question, how does that work? How does it know to pass an argument to the ChatHub constructor? I understand the services.AddSingleton part, just not how that gets "wired up".
When SignalR instantiates your hub instance (the framework controls this, you don't), it will resolve any dependencies specified in your Hub's constructor. This is part of the dependency injection system that's part of .NET (as mentioned in the comments).
Same thing with a controller class. How does the program know to pass an IHubContext object into its constructor? Where do you specify that?
Same idea, but you didn't have to wire up IHubContext, that's something that AddSignalR does.
Finally, how would you go about making this setup work? Current I'm trying to communicate from ChatHub->chatStorage->ChatController->ChatHub. And to do that I'm trying to pass a reference to chatController in chatStorage.
It's not exactly clear to me what you want the interaction to be between the client and the server to both the hub and the controller.
What I'm trying to achieve is, in a chat application: store messages outside of the Hub so that each time a user joins the chat, they can see all messages that had been sent before they joined.
Going back to this original statement I can ask a few clarifying questions:
When the user writes a message in the chat room, are you calling the hub or a controller action (REST API)? That will determine where you need to inject the IChatStorage type. Once you receive a message, you'll stash the message in IChatStorage.
When the user joins the chat, they'll make a call to the server to retrieve all messages. This call will return messages stored in IChatStorage.
Assuming you want to use the hub for everything, you would expose methods on the hub do accomplish this. If you wanted to use REST API calls from the client, then you would use the controller.
I'm working on a micro service powered by SpringMVC and Spring Cloud Kafka.
For simplicity I will only focus on the part that makes HTTP request.
I have a binding function like the following (please note that I'm using the functional style binding).
#SpringBootApplication
public class ExampleApplication {
// PayloadSender uses RestTemplate to send HTTP request.
#Autowired
private PayloadSender payloadSender;
#Bean
public Function<KStream<String, Input>, KStream<String, Output>> process() {
// payloadSender.send() is a blocking call which sends payload using RestTemplate,
// once response is received it will collect all info and create "Output" object
return input -> input
.map((k,v) -> KeyValue.pair(k, payloadSender.send(v))); // "send" is a blocking call
// Question: if autoCommitOffset is set to true, would offset automatically commit right after the "map" function from KStream?
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SpringApplication.run(ExampleApplication.class, args);
}
}
From this example you can see that the payloadSender is sending the payload from the input stream using RestTemplate and upon receiving the response creating the "Output" object and produce to the output topic.
Since payloadSender.send() is blocking, I'm worried that this will cause performance issue. Most importantly if the HTTP request gets timed out, I'm afraid it will exceed the commit interval (usually the HTTP timeout interval is much much greater than the consumer commit interval) and cause the kafka broker to think the consumer is dead (please correct me if I'm wrong).
So is there a better solution for this case? I would eventually switch over to spring-reactive but for the time being I need to make sure the MVC model works. Although I'm not sure spring-reactive would have magically solve this issue.
The default max.poll.interval is 5 minutes; you can increase it or reduce max.poll.records. You can also set a timeout on the rest call.
This article shows a well-known problem with HttpClient that can lead to socket exhaustion.
I have an ASP.NET Core 3.1 web application. In a .NET Standard 2.0 class library I've added a WCF web service reference in Visual Studio 2019 following this instructions.
In a service I'm using the WCF client the way it's described in the documentation. Creating an instance of the WCF client and then closing the client for every request.
public class TestService
{
public async Task<int> Add(int a, int b)
{
CalculatorSoapClient client = new CalculatorSoapClient();
var resultat = await client.AddAsync(a, b);
//this is a bad way to close the client I should also check
//if I need to call Abort()
await client.CloseAsync();
return resultat;
}
}
I know it's bad practice to close the client without any checks but for the purpose of this example it does not matter.
When I start the application and make five requests to an action method that uses the WCF client and then take a look at the result from netstat I discover open connections with status TIME_WAIT, much like the problems in the article above about HttpClient.
It looks to me like using the WCF client out-of-the-box like this can lead to socket exhaustion or am I missing something?
The WCF client inherits from ClientBase<TChannel>. Reading this article it looks to me like the WCF client uses HttpClient. If that is the case then I probably shouldn't create a new client for every request, right?
I've found several articles (this and this) talking about using a singleton or reusing the WCF client in some way. Is this the way to go?
###UPDATE
Debugging the appropriate parts of the WCF source code I discovered that a new HttpClient and HttpClientHandler were created each time I created a new WCF client which I do for every request.
You can inspect the code here
internal virtual HttpClientHandler GetHttpClientHandler(EndpointAddress to, SecurityTokenContainer clientCertificateToken)
{
return new HttpClientHandler();
}
This handler is used in to create a new HttpClient in the GetHttpClientAsync method:
httpClient = new HttpClient(handler);
This explains why the WCF client in my case behaves just like a HttpClient that is created and disposed for every request.
Matt Connew writes in an issue in the WCF repo that he has made it possible to inject your own HttpMessage factory into the WCF client.
He writes:
I implemented the ability to provide a Func<HttpClientHandler,
HttpMessageHandler> to enable modifying or replacing the
HttpMessageHandler. You provide a method which takes an
HttpClientHandler and returns an HttpMessageHandler.
Using this information I injected my own factory to be able to control the generation of HttpClientHandlers in HttpClient.
I created my own implementation of IEndpointBehavior that injects IHttpMessageHandlerFactory to get a pooled HttpMessageHandler.
public class MyEndpoint : IEndpointBehavior
{
private readonly IHttpMessageHandlerFactory messageHandlerFactory;
public MyEndpoint(IHttpMessageHandlerFactory messageHandlerFactory)
{
this.messageHandlerFactory = messageHandlerFactory;
}
public void AddBindingParameters(ServiceEndpoint endpoint, BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters)
{
Func<HttpClientHandler, HttpMessageHandler> myHandlerFactory = (HttpClientHandler clientHandler) =>
{
return messageHandlerFactory.CreateHandler();
};
bindingParameters.Add(myHandlerFactory);
}
<other empty methods needed for implementation of IEndpointBehavior>
}
As you can see in AddBindingParameters I add a very simple factory that returns a pooled HttpMessageHandler.
I add this behavior to my WCF client like this.
public class TestService
{
private readonly MyEndpoint endpoint;
public TestService(MyEndpoint endpoint)
{
this.endpoint = endpoint;
}
public async Task<int> Add(int a, int b)
{
CalculatorSoapClient client = new CalculatorSoapClient();
client.Endpoint.EndpointBehaviors.Add(endpoint);
var resultat = await client.AddAsync(a, b);
//this is a bad way to close the client I should also check
//if I need to call Abort()
await client.CloseAsync();
return resultat;
}
}
Be sure to update any package references to System.ServiceModel.* to at least version 4.5.0 for this to work. If you're using Visual Studio's 'Add service reference' feature, VS will pull in the 4.4.4 versions of these packages (tested with Visual Studio 16.8.4).
When I run the applications with these changes I no longer have an open connection for every request I make.
You should consider disposing your CalculatorSoapClient. Be aware that a simple Dispose() is usually not enough, becaue of the implementation of the ClientBase.
Have a look at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/wcf/samples/use-close-abort-release-wcf-client-resources?redirectedfrom=MSDN, there the problem is explained.
Also consider that the underlying code is managing your connections, sometimes it will keep them alive for later use. Try calling the server a lot of times to see, if there is a new connection for each call, or if the connections are being reused.
The meaning TIME_WAIT is also discussed here:
https://superuser.com/questions/173535/what-are-close-wait-and-time-wait-states
https://serverfault.com/questions/450055/lot-of-fin-wait2-close-wait-last-ack-and-time-wait-in-haproxy
It looks like your client has done everything required to close the connection and is just waiting for the confirmation of the server.
You should not have to use a singleton since the framework is (usually) taking good care of the connections.
I created an issue in the WCF repository in Github and got some great answers.
According to Matt Connew and Stephen Bonikowsky who are authorities in this area the best solution is to reuse the client or the ChannelFactory.
Bonikowsky writes:
Create a single client and re-use it.
var client = new ImportSoapClient();
And Connew adds:
Another possibility is you could create a channel proxy instance from
the underlying channelfactory. You would do this with code similar to
this:
public void Init()
{
_client?.Close();
_factory?.Close();
_client = new ImportSoapClient();
_factory = client.ChannelFactory;
}
public void DoWork()
{
var proxy = _factory.CreateChannel();
proxy.MyOperation();
((IClientChannel)proxy).Close();
}
According to Connew there is no problem reusing the client in my ASP.NET Core web application with potentially concurrent requests.
Concurrent requests all using the same client is not a problem as long
as you explicitly open the channel before any requests are made. If
using a channel created from the channel factory, you can do this with
((IClientChannel)proxy).Open();. I believe the generated client also
adds an OpenAsync method that you can use.
UPDATE
Since reusing the WCF Client also means reusing the HttpClient instance and that could lead to the known DNS problem I decided to go with my original solution using my own implementation of IEndpointBehavior as described in the question.
As we know that Rebus provides Topic Based routing in addition to the familiar TypeBased routing although we are told that the TypeBased routing follows the same principle.
On my side however unfortunately I have not seen a good example on how to create a handler that processes messages published to a particular topic.
Suppose I publish my message as follows
var message=new Student { StudentID=90008,FirstName="Chilipo",LastName="Mjengo" };
await bus.Advanced.Topics.Publish("rebus_example_topic", message);
In another endpoint I have subscribed to the topic as follows
await bus.Advanced.Topics.Subscribe("rebus_example_topic");
My interest is to know how do I then implement the Handler that will process the messages published to the rebus_example_topic.
Regards
It's quite simple, actually 🙂 the preferred way of writing message handlers is to implement IHandleMessage<TMessage>, where TMessage is your message type.
In your case that would be
public class StudentHandler : IHandleMessages<Student>
{
public async Task Handle(Student message)
{
// handle your message in here
}
}
How you then activate your message handler depends on which handler activator, you're using. The "handler activator" is what you use to instantiate message handlers, so you just need to register your handler in that to make it available to Rebus.
Some container integrations even come with additional help in the form of registration extensions, so e.g. if you're using Autofac, you can register your handler like this:
containerBuilder.RegisterHandler<StudentHandler>();
I'm not really to up on Async controller, I'm currently reading what I can but I thought I'd try and save myself some time as I'm on a rather tight deadline.
I'm working on a project that allows users to upload video clips but I then want to convert them to different formats for playback on different devices. I was thinking of doing this straight after the upload has happened but the down side is the user will be waiting for that to finish before they can navigate away.
So to my question, would using a async controller and action allow the conversion process to happen with out the user having to wait at the upload page?
Apologies if this is a stupid question, like I said I've only just started reading about async controllers
Thanks
No. AsyncController frees up the thread executing the controller to do other things when there is low CPU usage (for example heavy I/O). A result will not be returned to the client until the action method returns.
You are better off starting your conversion in a separate thread, if you want to return a page quickly. We use this approach when sending emails, so that the user does not have to wait for the email to be sent before we return a view to them.
Here is how we send emails.
// this can go in an action method, or you can DI this code as a service
var sender = new SmtpEmailSender(message);
var thread = new Thread(sender.Send);
thread.Start();
...
return View(model);
// this is the code run by the new thread
// (EmailMessage is a custom type in our app)
public class SmtpEmailSender
{
public SmtpEmailSender(EmailMessage emailMessage)
{
// arg to instance field
}
public void Send()
{
// construct System.Net mail and send over SMTP
}
}