I'm sure that was a confusing enough title.
I have a long running Windows service dealing with things happening in the world. This service is my canonical source of truth for the rest of my system. Now I want to slap a web interface onto this so the clients can see what is actually going on. At first this would simply be a MVC5 application with some Web API stuff. Then I plan to use SignalR 2.0 and Ember.js to make this application more interactive and "realtime".
The client communicates with the Windows Service over named pipes using WCF. A client (such as a web app) could request an instance of for example IEventService, would be given a WCF proxy client, and could read about events through this interface. Simple enough.
However, a web application basically just exists in the sense that it responds to requests from the user. The way I understand it, this is not the optimal environment for a long lived WCF client proxy to raise events in, and thus I wonder how to host my SignalR stuff. Keep in mind that a user would log in to the MVC5 site, but through the magic of SignalR, they will keep interacting with the service without necessarily making further requests to the website.
The way I see it, there are two options:
1) Host SignalR stuff as part of the web app. Find a way to keep it "long-running" while it has active clients, so that it can react to events on the WCF client proxy by passing information out to the connected web users.
2) Host SignalR stuff as part of my Windows service. This is already long-running, but I know nada about OWIN and what this would mean for my project. Also the SignalR client will have to connect to a different port than where the web app was served from, I assume.
Any advice on which is the right direction to go in? Keep in mind that in extreme cases, a web user would log in when they get to work in the morning, and only have signalr traffic going back and forth (i.e. no web requests) for a full work day, before logging out. I need them to keep up with realtime events all that time.
Any takers? :)
The benefit of self-hosting as part of your Windows service is that you can integrate the calls to clients directly with your existing code and events. If you host the SignalR server separately, you'd have another layer of communication between your service and the SignalR server.
If you've already decided on using WCF named pipes for that, then it probably won't make a difference whether you self-host or host in IIS (as long as it's on the same machine). The SignalR server itself is always "long-running" in the sense that as long as a client is connected, it will receive updates. It doesn't require manual requests from the user.
In any case, you'll probably need a web server to serve the HTML, scripts and images.
Having clients connected for a day shouldn't be a problem either way, as far as I can see.
Related
I am creating a web app. I want to create a listening service (TCP) that listens continuously and updates web page according to that.
A Windows service or a WCF service?
At the end I just want a background service that listens on a socket continuously and update data in database. and when database is updated I will use signal r to show that in my page.
Right now I am trying with WCF but I am wondering if it can be done with Windows service also. And right now this application will work on LAN. But in the future, it can also be in the cloud.
First of all, it is important to understand that a Windows service and a WCF service are not the same.
A Windows service is a specialized executable that runs in the background on Windows.
A WCF service is a specialized piece of code that exposes some functionality through a well-defined endpoint. It does not run on its own, but instead must be hosted by some parent process, like IIS, a desktop application, or even a Windows service.
In thinking about the problem you've described, I suppose the most fundamental question to ask is whether or not you have control over the data that will be received via the TCP connection. WCF is built on the notion of the ABCs (Address, Binding, and Contract), all of which have to match in order to facilitate data exchange between WCF endpoints. For example, if you wish to expose a WCF endpoint via IIS that accepts TCP connections from some remote WCF endpoint, the remote WCF endpoint needs to send data to your IIS-hosted WCF endpoint using the agreed-upon data contract. Absent that, WCF will not work. So, if you cannot define the data contract to be used between WCF endpoints, then you'll need to find another option. An option that will work is to open a TCP listener within a Windows service, process the data as it is received, update your database, and listen for more data.
================================================
By way of example, I work on a project that has a front-end desktop application that communicates with a back-end Windows service. We build both the application and the Windows service, so we have full control over the data exchange between the two processes. At one point in time, we used WCF as the mechanism for data exchange. The Windows service would host a WCF service that exposed a NetNamedPipeBinding, which we later on changed to NetTcpBinding to get around some system administration issues. The application would then create its own endpoint to communicate with the WCF service being hosted within the Windows service.
This worked fine.
As our system got more mature, we needed to start sending more and more information from the Windows service to the application. If I recall correctly, I believe we experimented with streaming within WCF and concluded that the overhead was not something we could tolerate. So, we used WCF to exchange commands and status information between the application and the Windows service, but we simultaneously used a TCP socket connection to stream the data from the Windows service to the application.
This worked fine.
When we got a chance to update the Windows service software, we decided that it would be better to have a single communication mechanism between the Windows service and the application. So, we replaced WCF altogether with a TCP socket connection that uses a homegrown messaging protocol to exchange information in both directions - application to Windows service and Windows service to application.
This works fine and is the approach we've used for a couple of years now.
HTH
I am in a stage of using SignalR in my project and i don't understand when to use Self hosted option and when we should not use. As a example if I am willing to host my web application in server farm,
There will be separate hosting servers
Separate SignalR hubs in each IIS server
If we want to broadcast message into each client, how this is working in SignalR
The idea with SignalR running in multiple instances is that clients connected on instance A cannot get messages from clients connected to instance B.
(SignalR scaleout documentation)
However, when you scale out, clients can get routed to different
servers. A client that is connected to one server will not receive
messages sent from another server.
The solution to this is using a backplane - everytime a server recieves a message, it forwards it to all other servers. You can do this using Azure Service Bus, Redis or SQL.
The way I see, you use the self host option when you either don't want the full IIS running (because you have some lightweight operations that don't require all IIS heaviness) or you don't want a web server at all (for example you want to add real-time functionality to an already existing let's say forms application, or in any other process).
Be sure to read the documentation for self-hosting SignalR and decide whether you actually need to self host SignalR.
If you are developing a web application under IIS, I don't see any reason why you would want to self-host SignalR.
Hope this helps. Best of luck!
My team is in the middle of deciding the architecture of our backend system:
Webserver A is an ASP.NET MVC application with ASP.NET Web API component, hosted in Azure Website.
Windows Service B is a self-hosted OWIN server that will periodically push notifications to clients who subscribes to the notification, hosted in Azure VM.
Windows Service C is a client that subscribes to notification from B, hosted in Azure VM.
Since we are more-or-less entrenched in .NET stack, we implemented B as SignalR server with C being the SignalR client. This part seems to work well.
Now comes a point where we also want A to subscribe to B, but I realize that it means an ASP.NET Web Server is going to act as SignalR CLIENT, instead of the typical scenario where it acts as SignalR server.
I presume we can initialize the SignalR connection in Global.asax and make the process ever-running to avoid AppDomain recycle. However, I feel a bit iffy when a Web Server is made to do something other than serving web requests. This solution also make the web server not stateless since it needs to maintain the web socket connection alive.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with making an ASP.NET application a SignalR client? Is there any possible gotcha with this setup?
In Azure you cannot tell that your AppDomain will not recycle. Because of many reasons, it can restart itself to heal and then you will end up making a new connection to the SingleR server. Is that OK for you?
Also SingleR is mostly used in the Web Functionality improvement where polling and refresh on web clients is made simple. But as your requirement seems to be all a back end stuff, I would suggest you to go with any other event driven pattern. Check Azure Service Bus topic/subscription model to have different components listen to various events and act accordingly.
I have WCF service, called by ASP.NET web application. When there is more than one call per page request, is it better to keep client open and share the instance across the whole request, or is it better to create and dispose client per each service call as shown below?
using (var client = new WcfClient())
{
var result = client.Method();
}
If you're using webHttpbinding, wshttpbinding or basicHttpbinding, the default behavior is for each client request (call) to get its own unique connection and instance of the web service object(s). This means that when Client A and B send requests to your web service, each will get it's own instance of the service, instantiated by the hosting program, then disposed of neatly (hopefully) when the response is sent back to the client. The WCF .NET infrastructure and the hosting program take care of all of the creation and destruction of the connections and objects for you, unless you hijack the process and do something fancy.
It's possible to create persistant client sessions that leave a connection open and the service in memory, but I've never tried it. Here's a link to an explanation of how to do it:
WCF sessions with a wsHttpBinding and without windows security
For the last two years, I've worked entirely on WCF client and host software on an industrial scale and there's not much reason to worry about the efficiency of continuously openning and closing connections on a WCF web service. I've benchmarked our tests services with hundreds of concurrent client connections, each uploading and downloading files, and it barely stresses the WCF server's CPU. During our tests, the majority of the stress (as usual) fell on the database side.
So i want to to create a web application using asp.net to connect to another application (for example a simple windows form) using sockets. The problem is i'm behind firewall and i don't have the authority to mess with the firewall settings, what other options can i do besides sockets?
My application is fairly simple, the web application will be hosted on the internet and has a "connect" button, when its click it establish connection with the windows form that is on another computer and display the message "Connected" if its connected. All this will be tested behind some kind of corporal firewall. How do i get around this?
The firewall is there specifically to stop this kind of thing.
The bestway around it would be to have the Forms app poll the server for connectivity - this can be made to look near real time by making the server receive the request, then wait until it gets a connect action, or time out after a few minutes and return nothing. Then the forms app would request again.
I think instead of using directly a web application, you should look forward to create a web service to solve both the purposes. You can have its reference in both of them. your Web Form will make a request to connect to the web service instead of application. That will solve both purposes.