Instantiating a class within WCF - asp.net

I'm writing a WCF WebMethod to upload files to, of which I taken snippets from around the web. The WCF interface looks like this:
<ServiceContract()>
Public Interface ITransferService
<OperationContract()>
Sub UploadFile(ByVal request As RemoteFileInfo)
End Interface
<MessageContract()>
Public Class RemoteFileInfo
Implements IDisposable
<MessageHeader(MustUnderstand:=True)>
Public FileName As String
<MessageHeader(MustUnderstand:=True)>
Public Length As Long
<MessageBodyMember(Order:=1)>
Public FileByteStream As System.IO.Stream
Public Sub Dispose() Implements IDisposable.Dispose
If FileByteStream IsNot Nothing Then
FileByteStream.Close()
FileByteStream = Nothing
End If
End Sub
End Class
Within ASP.NET, when the web method is consumed, for some reason it only works when the interface is used as part of the instantiation of RemoteFileInfo:
Protected Sub btn_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles btn.Click
If fu.HasFile Then
Dim fi As New System.IO.FileInfo(fu.PostedFile.FileName)
' this is the line in question --------------
Dim cu As ServiceReference1.ITransferService = New ServiceReference1.TransferServiceClient()
' -------------------------------------------
Dim uri As New ServiceReference1.RemoteFileInfo()
Using stream As New System.IO.FileStream(fu.PostedFile.FileName, IO.FileMode.Open, IO.FileAccess.Read)
uri.FileName = fu.FileName
uri.Length = fi.Length
uri.FileByteStream = stream
cu.UploadFile(uri)
End Using
End If
End Sub
Can anyone advise why it is not possible to create an instance of TransferService using the following approach:
Dim cu As New ServiceReference1.TransferServiceClient()
If I try the above, it breaks this line:
cu.UploadFile(uri)
...and UploadFile must be called with three parameters (FileName, Length, FileByteStream) even there is no method that uses this signature.
Why is the Interface required when creating an instance of this class please?

When you create the proxy for your service with the "Add Service Reference" dialog, by default the proxy creation code will "unwrap" message contracts, like the one you have. If you want the message contract to appear as you defined on the server side on your proxy, you need to select the "Advanced" tab, and check the "Always generate message contracts" option. With that you'll get the message contract in your client as well.

The issue is that when a MessageContract is encountered as a parameter, the WCF client generation assumes by default that you want to implement a messaging-style interface, and provides the discrete properties from the message contract as part of the client-side interface.
The Using Messaging Contracts article in MSDN contains a very detailed description of what can be done with a messaging contract and I suspect that Microsoft chose this default behavior because of some of the "games" that you can play with the messages.
However, if you examine the code generated for your UploadFile on the client side, there are some interesting tidbits that help to explain what is going on.
The first is the comments for the UploadFile method in the interface:
'CODEGEN: Generating message contract since the operation UploadFile is neither RPC nor document wrapped.
...
Function UploadFile(ByVal request As ServiceReference1.RemoteFileInfo) As ServiceReference1.UploadFileResponse
This implies that the contract would have been generated differently if the message contract had a different implementation.
The second is that you will see that there is nothing special about the code that is used to actually make the service call:
Public Sub UploadFile(ByVal FileName As String, ByVal Length As Long, ByVal FileByteStream As System.IO.Stream)
Dim inValue As ServiceReference1.RemoteFileInfo = New ServiceReference1.RemoteFileInfo()
inValue.FileName = FileName
inValue.Length = Length
inValue.FileByteStream = FileByteStream
Dim retVal As ServiceReference1.UploadFileResponse = CType(Me,ServiceReference1.ITransferService).UploadFile(inValue)
End Sub
So in this case, your code is doing exactly what the generated code does. However, if the MessageContract were more complex, I suspect that this would no longer be the case.
So, for your question:
Can anyone advise why it is not possible to create an instance of
TransferService using the following approach...
There is no reason not to take this approach as long as you verify that the implementation of the method call is functionality equivalent to your code.
There are a couple of options for changing the default generation of the method in the client:
1) Remove the MessageContract attribute from the RemoteFileInfo class.
2) Although it seems to be counter-intuitive, you can check the Always generate message contracts checkbox in the Configure Service Reference Dialog Box.

Related

Write to a log file asynchronously from asp.net task

Using VB.Net (Framework version 4.5.1)
I have a program that sets up a list of (System.Threading.Tasks.Task) tasks that are executed as follows (only relevant code is shown):
po = New System.Threading.Tasks.ParallelOptions()
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 5
Parallel.ForEach( task_list, po, AddressOf do_work )
The program works fine, but I want to add a log file rather than using just Console.WriteLine()
In the do_work() Sub, I want to write to a log file, for example:
Sub do_work( param As String )
Dim thread_id as String = "Thread ID " & System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString() & ": "
joblog_append( thread_id & "Beg" )
joblog_append( thread_id & "param = " & param )
joblog_append( thread_id & "End" )
End Sub
Ideally, I would like to create three functions such as:
joblog_open() to open a log file at the start o the program.
joblog_append() to append to the log file; callable from within any task
joblog_close() to close the log file
What is the correct way to implement such logging when the joblog_append() will be called from multiple tasks being executed on separate threads?
All attempts I have tried so far seem to be hit and miss; sometimes the data is written to the output file, sometimes it is not.
Any advice (or better yet, a code example) would be most appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I think that the issue you have is due to the fact multiple threads are accessing the file at the same time.
A better approach would be to make sure only one thread access the file at a time. You could use a lock (see this SO) or append the messages to be written to a concurrentQueue of string, then process that queue on another thread.
The joblog_append calls _Logger.Log, which in turns enqueue the message and start a new thread to process the queue.
private _Logger as new Logger
Private Sub joblog_append(Message As String)
_Logger.Log(Message)
End Sub
The logger class performs the following.
Append message to to a concurrent queue
Create and start a task (if no one already running) to write queue content to the file.
Set the task to nothing when completed
In the event the task is already created, the message is enqueued and the While condition in the task itself should take care of any messages added while it's running.
'Missing: Idisposable, Fileaccess.Shared,
'TODO: remove debugger.break
Public class Logger
Public Property Messages As new ConcurrentQueue(Of string)
private _WorkerTask as Task
private event WorkerTaskCompleted
private _Stream as FileStream
private _Writer as StreamWriter
Public sub New()
_Stream = io.file.OpenWrite("Mylog.txt")
_Writer = New StreamWriter(_Stream)
End sub
Public sub Log(Message as string)
Messages.Enqueue(Message)
if _WorkerTask Is Nothing
_WorkerTask = New Task(sub()
While Messages.Any
Dim CurrentMessage as string = ""
if Messages.TryDequeue(CurrentMessage)
_Writer.WriteLine(CurrentMessage)
else
debugger.Break
End If
End While
_Writer.Flush
_Stream.Flush
RaiseEvent WorkerTaskCompleted
End Sub)
_WorkerTask.Start
End If
End sub
Private Sub Logger_WorkerTaskCompleted() Handles Me.WorkerTaskCompleted
_WorkerTask = Nothing
End Sub
End Class
Please note. This is my approach to this problem but I do not have anything similar implemented and tested. Therefore, you will have to make your tests to confirm it is working properly.

How to store and access per call data in WCF

I'm trying to set up some WCF services that are connected and pass a custom HTTP header from service to service.
That is my client call ServiceX, which calls ServiceY, which writes to the DB.
They are originally called from a Silverlight 5 client in some cases, other cases from an ASP.NET web app.
I implemented IClientMessageInspector and IDispatchMessageInspector to pass the header from service to service, and in the DispatchMessageInspector I wrote the header to an implementation of IExtension(Of OperationContext) (see below).
However, I wanted this data only to exist for the duration of the call, but it seems to be sticking around in the services under certain circumstances as I keep seeing the same header data repeated in different calls.
Ultimately, I want to be able to pass a custom header to a WCF service, persist it only while that call exists, send it to the next service in the header, and wipe out that service instance. Am I wrong in my thinking that using a PerCall WCF service setup and OperationContext is the right way to do that?
Here is my implementation of IExtension(Of OperationContext). The auditTransactionId is the thing I want to pass in the service. As well, the Current() property is where I keep seeing existing data:
Imports System.ServiceModel
Public Class CustomOperationContextExtension
Implements IExtension(Of OperationContext)
Private ReadOnly m_items As IDictionary(Of String, Object)
Private m_auditTransactionId As String
Private Sub New()
m_items = New Dictionary(Of String, Object)()
End Sub
Public ReadOnly Property Items() As IDictionary(Of String, Object)
Get
Return m_items
End Get
End Property
Public Property AuditTransactionId() As String
Get
Return m_auditTransactionId
End Get
Set(value As String)
m_auditTransactionId = value
End Set
End Property
Public Shared ReadOnly Property Current() As CustomOperationContextExtension
Get
If (OperationContext.Current IsNot Nothing) Then
Dim context As CustomOperationContextExtension = OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Find(Of CustomOperationContextExtension)()
If context Is Nothing Then
context = New CustomOperationContextExtension()
OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Add(context)
End If
Return context
End If
Return Nothing
End Get
End Property
Public Sub Attach(owner As OperationContext) Implements IExtension(Of System.ServiceModel.OperationContext).Attach
End Sub
Public Sub Detach(owner As OperationContext) Implements IExtension(Of System.ServiceModel.OperationContext).Detach
End Sub
End Class
EDIT:
When I say that data is sticking around, I mean that when I call Current in a new service call I expect the Extensions list to be empty (in the code below in the Current() property), but there is always an existing instance of CustomOperationContextExtension there already that is left over fro a previous call. I'm not sure under which circumstances this happens.

Can I modify the Request.Headers collection?

I have an ASP.NET site that uses a third-party reporting component. This component is misbehaving by throwing a NullReferenceException whenever the client browser is not specifying a User-Agent in the request headers.
It's basically an odd scenario that I'm just trying to come up with a workaround for. I do not know who/what client is not specifying a User-Agent, which seems like bad form IMO, but we have to deal with the exceptions it is generating. I have logged a support ticket with the third-party regarding the bug in their reporting component, but I have my doubts about how fruitful that route is going to be. So my thought was just to detect when the User-Agent is blank and default it to something just to appease the reporting component. However, I can't seem to change anything in the Request.Headers collection. I get the following exception:
Operation is not supported on this platform.
I'm starting to believe I'm not going to be able to do this. I understand why ASP.NET wouldn't allow this, but I haven't come up with any other workaround.
Update: At penfold's suggestion, I tried to add the User-Agent to the Request.Headers collection using an HttpModule. This got it added to the Headers collection, but did nothing to update the Request.UserAgent property, which is what is causing the reporting component to fail. I've been looking through .NET Reflector to determine how that property is set so that I can update it, but I haven't come up with anything yet (there isn't just a private field that drives the property that I can find).
Recently I also facing similar problem same as you. I overcome the problem
of Request.UserAgent by using a mock HttpWorkerRequest.
(Assuming you already solve the agent string in Request.Headers with custom HttpModule)
Here is the sample code:
Friend Class MockedRequestWorker
Inherits HttpWorkerRequest
Private ReadOnly _BaseHttpWorkerRequest As HttpWorkerRequest
Private ReadOnly _UserAgent As String
Friend Sub New(ByVal base As HttpWorkerRequest,
ByVal UserAgent As String)
_BaseHttpWorkerRequest = base
_UserAgent = UserAgent
End Sub
Public Overrides Sub EndOfRequest()
_BaseHttpWorkerRequest.EndOfRequest()
End Sub
Public Overrides Sub FlushResponse(ByVal finalFlush As Boolean)
_BaseHttpWorkerRequest.FlushResponse(finalFlush)
End Sub
'Note: remember to override all other virtual functions by direct invoke functions
'from _BaseHttpWorkerRequest, except the following function
Public Overrides Function GetKnownRequestHeader(ByVal index As Integer) As String
'if user is requesting the user agent value, we return the
'override user agent string
If index = HttpWorkerRequest.HeaderUserAgent Then
Return _UserAgent
End If
Return _BaseHttpWorkerRequest.GetKnownRequestHeader(index)
End Function
End Class
then, in your custom HttpApplication.BeginRequest handler, do this
Private Sub BeginRequestHandler(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As EventArgs)
Dim request As HttpRequest = HttpRequest.Current.Request
Dim HttpRequest_wrField As FieldInfo = GetType(HttpRequest).GetField("_wr", BindingFlags.Instance Or BindingFlags.NonPublic)
Dim ua As String = "your agent string here"
Dim _wr As HttpWorkerRequest = HttpRequest_wrField.GetValue(request)
Dim mock As New MockedRequestWorker(_wr, ua)
'Replace the internal field with our mocked instance
HttpRequest_wrField.SetValue(request, mock)
End Sub
Note: this method still does not replace the user agent value in ServerVariables, but it should able to solve what you need(and my problem too)
Hope this help :)
protected void Application_BeginRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e) {
const string ua = "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0)";
Request.Headers["User-Agent"] = ua;
var httpWorkerRequestField = Request.GetType().GetField("_wr", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
if (httpWorkerRequestField != null) {
var httpWorkerRequest = httpWorkerRequestField.GetValue(Request);
var knownRequestHeadersField = httpWorkerRequest.GetType().GetField("_knownRequestHeaders", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
if (knownRequestHeadersField != null) {
string[] knownRequestHeaders = (string[])knownRequestHeadersField.GetValue(httpWorkerRequest);
knownRequestHeaders[39] = ua;
}
}
}
I think the best way of handling this is to use a http module that will check the header and inject the user agent if necessary.
As you have found out you cannot use the set method on the Headers object. Instead you will have to inject the user agent string into the header via protected properties that can be accessed through reflection as outlined in the answer to this question.
UPDATE
Unfortunately Request.UserAgent doesn't use the information held in Request.Headers, instead it calls the method GetKnownRequestHeader in HttpWorkerRequest. This is an abstract class and from looking at the decompiled library code the actual implementation varies depending on the hosting environment. Therefore I cannot see a way to replace the user agent string in a reliable manner via reflection. You could roll your own WorkerRequest class but for the amount of effort I don't think the payoff would be worth it.
Sorry to be negative but I think its just not possible to set the user agent within the web application in a simple manner. Your best option at the moment would be to perform a pre-check for a user agent, and if the request doesn't have one return a browser not supported error message.
You could also investigate injecting something earlier on, i.e. in IIS or at your proxy server if you use one.
Also I would recommend that this issue is reported to SAP. I know they are actively working on the Viewer at the moment and who knows they might fix it and maybe even add support for Opera!

Getting a ScriptReference from a ScriptResourceMapping definition in a custom control

I am building a custom control with client side scripts that I would like to reference using ScriptManager.ScriptResourceMapping (to make use of the Path and DebugPath attributes).
I would like the custom control to be easily ported to other projects - i.e. I would like to drag and drop the codebehind files (and eventually make the control a separate DLL, but for now the drag and drop will suffice). I would therefore like to avoid (1) having the client script as an embedded resource, (2) referenced as a WebResource in the AssemblyInfo, or (3) have the ScriptManager.ScriptResourceMapping.AddDefinition in global.asax.
In simple terms can I get the script management code to be in just the custom control's code?
At the moment I am getting an error stating that the script reference cannot be found in the assembly, and I guess I am setting the wrong assembly.
My custom control code is as follows:
Public Class MyControl
Inherits System.Web.UI.LiteralControl
Implements ISectionControl, IScriptControl
Private _scriptReference As ScriptReference
Public Sub New()
' Add the resource mapping
ScriptManager.ScriptResourceMapping.AddDefinition("MyControlScript", New ScriptResourceDefinition With {
.ResourceAssembly = System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly,
.ResourceName = "MyControlScript.js",
.Path = "Path.To.MyControlScript.minimised.js",
.DebugPath = "Path.To.MyControlScript.original.js"
})
' Set the script reference
_scriptReference = New ScriptReference("MyControlScript.js", Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly.FullName)
End Sub
Protected Overrides Sub OnPreRender(e As System.EventArgs)
MyBase.OnPreRender(e)
' Register the script
ScriptManager.GetCurrent(Page).RegisterScriptControl(Of MyControl)(Me)
' Some code to set the Text of the literal control
' ...
End Sub
Public Function GetScriptDescriptors() As System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable(Of System.Web.UI.ScriptDescriptor) Implements System.Web.UI.IScriptControl.GetScriptDescriptors
Return New ScriptDescriptor() {}
End Function
Public Function GetScriptReferences() As System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable(Of System.Web.UI.ScriptReference) Implements System.Web.UI.IScriptControl.GetScriptReferences
Return New ScriptReference() {_scriptReference}
End Function
End Class
I hope the question makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to read through.
Ali
Answered this myself, I was getting confused with the assemblies and the constructors for ScriptReference. I just wanted a ScriptReference with the (mapped) name so I used the blank constructor and then set Name. I could then remove the assembly information.
Adjusting the following sorted the problem out:
Public Sub New()
' Add the resource mapping
ScriptManager.ScriptResourceMapping.AddDefinition("MyControlScript", New ScriptResourceDefinition With {
.Path = "Path.To.MyControlScript.minimised.js",
.DebugPath = "Path.To.MyControlScript.original.js"
})
' Set the script reference
_scriptReference = New ScriptReference() With {.Name="MyControlScript"}
End Sub

Response.Redirect to Class that inherits from UI.Page?

everyone, thank for your time.
Well this my problem (well it's not a probleam at all), it is possible to have a class that inherits from ui.page and then instance an object of that class and do a redirect to it ?
Something like this:
Public sub myMethod()
Dim myPage as new myClassThatInheritsFromUIPage()
Response.redirect(myPage) 'Here is one of my "no-idea" line
end sub
I do this in my webForm (and that what I want to do in a class that inherits from ui.page):
Response.BufferOutput = True
Response.ClearContent()
Response.ClearHeaders()
ostream=crReportDocument.ExportToStream(CrystalDecisions.Shared.ExportFormatType.PortableDocFormat)
Response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "force-download")
Response.AppendHeader("Content-disposition","attachment;filename=ReportAsPDF.pdf")
Response.ContentType = "application/pdf"
Response.BinaryWrite(ostream.ToArray())
Response.Flush()
HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest()
What I want to do is perfectly possible with a normal WebForm, but my webForm doesn't render nothing at all (at least as (x)html so, that's because I would like to know if what I'm asking is possible to achieve.
Thank you everyone.
Well at the end I just add "HttpContext.Current." to all the lines that include a "response" attribute, so now I have just a class that NOT inherits from "UI.Page" and just call the method that clear the buffer (a custom method), add the headers (to force the download,set the mime type and filename) and flush the response by itself and get the effect/use I want it.
In order to access to the Session vars just add "HttpContext.Current." and it works, I don't know how secure or if is a good way,but appears to work well.
So the code now looks something like this:
Imports CrystalDecisions.CrystalReports.Engine
Imports CrystalDecisions.Shared
Imports CrystalDecisions.ReportSource
Namespace foo
Public Class requestReport
'just to instance the object'
Public Sub New()
End Sub
Public Sub downloadReport()
'do all the stuff to connect and load the report'
HttpContext.Current.Response.BufferOutput = True
HttpContext.Current.Response.ClearContent()
HttpContext.Current.Response.ClearHeaders()
ostream=crReportDocument.ExportToStream(CrystalDecisions.Shared.ExportFormatType.PortableDocFormat)
HttpContext.Current.Response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "force-download")
HttpContext.Current.Response.AppendHeader("Content-disposition","attachment;filename=ReportAsPDF.pdf")
HttpContext.Current.Response.ContentType = "application/pdf"
HttpContext.Current.Response.BinaryWrite(ostream.ToArray())
HttpContext.Current.Response.Flush()
HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest()
End Sub
End Class
End Namespace
And from a command for example do this:
dim myReport as new foo.requestReport()
myReport.downloadReport()
Of course now you can add more attributes or method if you need it.
So now I don't even don't use Response.redirect() or inherits from "UI.Page", just a class that "change" the "current response" and "flush" the content created on fly with the crystal report, I think I was kind of totally lost but your answers really help me, especially what Tejs says, what is almost the same or the same what I just did. Thank you.
UPDATE:
By the way, I just realize that the ReportDocument class has this method: ExportToHttpResponse that let us flush the Crystal Report to the browser as PDF/XSL etc forcing (or not) the download of the file.
No, as there is no current overload that accepts a UI.Page instance. However, you could call the Render method on your new page and write directly to the response stream. AKA
Clear the Response Buffer.
Render your page instance to the response buffer.
Invoke Response.End() to flush the request and send it to the client.
If your new page doesnt actually do anything, you can additional just send no content back with the response.
You can use Server.Transfer and pass in the instance of the page object that you want to tranfer to.
Here is the documentation: HttpServerUtility.Transfer
Try just doing this instead:
HttpContext.Current.Response.Redirect("...");
HttpRequest Request = HttpContext.Current.Request;
HttpResponse Response = HttpContext.Current.Response;
And after that you can redirect any page.

Resources