Is it possible to have a global variable accessible between two WCF services?
I have written a WCF service to upload an excel file using AJAX uploader. I am trying to read a global variable which I would set in the upload service in another service.
Is this possible or is this approach right?
Trying to introduce global variables into an otherwise stateless infrastructure usually isn't recommended.
Another option may be to use WCF Sessions to track state across multiple consecutive service calls by the same client - on the server, a class instance variable declared would be available to all services methods in the class which are involved in the same session (and would be scoped to just this session).
Note that a global (e.g. static) variable would be shared across all clients, which may not give the the intended behaviour if you have more than one client.
Also, remember to make any thread safety considerations.
Related
I understand that instance variables are not thread safe because they are stored on the heap. I am refactoring code in an ASP.NET single threaded application and I am trying to use instance variables more.
My question is: do developers avoid using instance variables because of possible multi threading problems? (even if the app is not multi threaded now it may be in the future). I remember reading that instance variables should be used to improve design using composition and aggregation rather than association (as with local variables).
Is there any criteria that helps a developer to decide when to use instance variables and when to use local variables. I have Googled this and I have looked on MSDN but I have not managed to find an answer to my specific question.
Have you done anything to make the ASP.NET application single threaded? Otherwise it's multi treaded by default.
Instance variables is only a problem with multi threaded applications if you share the object between threads. Normal for an ASP.NET application is that each thread creates its own instances of the objects, so the multi threading is not a problem.
If you need to share data between threads, encapsulating the data in an object is still the best approach. By using private instance variables and access them through methods or properties, you can make sure that all access from outside the object is synchronised, as the code in the object has full control over where the data is exposed.
You are in fact referring to static variables. Static variables are not thread-safe (in general, unless you write code to synchronize appropriate access to the variable). Instance variables, in contrast, are thread-safe in asp.net since each request thread will operate on its own copy.
static variables are meant to store data that needs to be shared among all requests. If you don't have such scenario, you shouldn't need to use static variables. And if you do, there are classes that already provide for this, such as the Cache class.
Assuming are talking about web pages and instance variable of web page then you do not have to worry about the multi-threading and thread safety. The asp.net/web server will take care for that. This msdn article discuss the thread safety provide by asp.net.
I have a WCF service with ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.Single, ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Multiple). I want to use ThreadStatic variable to srore data.
I start worrying about is it possible two parallel requests for the same or different operationContracts get handled by the same thread serverside, because if this happens my ThreadStatic variable will get overriden.(I.e. something like the thread changing between HttpHandlers and HttpModules in ASP.NET)
I made a spike service with the same ServiceBehaviour and maxConcurrentCalls="2". After that a wcf client called the service with 50 parallel requests and my worry did not occur. However this is not a 100% proof.
Thank in advance!
Irrespective of the ConcurrencyMode, a ThreadStatic value will persist when your request terminates and the thread is returned to the thread pool. The same thread can be reused for a subsequent request, which will therefore be able to see your ThreadStatic value.
Obviously this won't be true for two concurrent requests, because by definition they will be executed on different threads.
From comments:
Also by definition MSDN says: 'The service instance is multi-threaded. No synchronization guarantees are made. Because other threads can change your service object at any time, you must handle synchronization and state consistency at all times.' So it is not so obvious:)
This means that a single instance of your service class can be accessed concurrently by multiple requests. So you would need to handle synchronization for any accesses to instance members of the service class.
However ThreadStatic members are by definition only used by one thread (and hence one request) at a time, so don't need synchronization.
The direct answer to your question is Joe's answer.
However you mention in the comments you are using an ambient design pattern. That pattern is already implemented in WCF as the OperationContext and is specifically designed to be extensible. I highly recommend using OperationContext over any custom thread storage.
See Where to store data for current WCF call? Is ThreadStatic safe?
I wanted to add to Joe's answer here because I would recommend that you use some sort of correlation for your requests if you're needing to store state. The threading model will become very convoluted and unreliable in production.
Further, now imagine you have two IIS servers hosting this service and a hardware or software load balancer forward facing so that you can consume it. To ensure that the correct state is gathered you'll need correlation because you never know which server the service will be started on. In the post below I mocked up a simplified version of how that might work. One thing to keep in mind is that the SessionState would need to be kept in a shared location to all instances of the service, an AppFabric Cache server for example.
Global Variable between two WCF Methods
I've just read this interesting article regarding simultaneously calling multiple methods on a WCF service from Silverlight:
http://weblogs.asp.net/olakarlsson/archive/2010/05/20/simultaneously-calling-multiple-methods-on-a-wcf-service-from-silverlight.aspx
The article states: "It turns out that the issue is founded in a mix of Silverlight, Asp.Net and WCF, basically if you’re doing multiple calls to a single WCF web-service and you have Asp.Net session state enabled, the calls will be executed sequentially by the service, hence any long running calls will block subsequent ones."
I am assuming that the blocking is only an issue if you are making multiple calls to the same service, and that two simultaneous calls to two different methods on two different services should not result in one blocking the other?
The suggested solution to the problem in SL3 involves using the following syntax in the Application_Startup method:
WebRequest.RegisterPrefix("http://", WebRequestCreator.ClientHttp);
The session state will then have to be maintained on WCF calls by seting up a cookie container, and sharing it across all of your proxies (see http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/p/174322/393032.aspx)
Is this still the recommended solution in Silverlight 4? Has anyone used an alternative approach?
In .NET 4, you can do this in Application_BeginRequest
if (Context.Request.Path.EndsWith("xxx.svc"))
Context.SetSessionStateBehavior(SessionStateBehavior.Disabled);
If you are making a call into an ASP.Net application, and you are using session cookies, then all the calls into the application are serialized (apart from ones where the page explicitly opts out of session state).
Normally this isn't a big issue, because a client browser typically hits an ASP.Net page plus a bunch of resources (images, js, css etc...), and these latter aren't mapped to ASP.Net so IIS serves them up natively. But if you try and hit two ASP.Net pages at the same time (eg in a frameset) you will see them load up one after another.
Now I don't know that this happens with WCF, but based on what you say, if you see that behaviour for one service I would expect to see that for all of them, because the session is per-user, not per-service.
In ASP.Net you can 'opt out' of session state on a page by page basis. If that's possible for a hosted WCF service, and viable for your scenario (to make the services stateless) that would aleviate the issue. Or move one or more services to a different ASP.Net application (different session)
Bear in mind that you can see other issues here to do with the instancing and reentrancy models of the service. Your problem as described above is a per-user concurrency issue, but there are others. For example, if you set the service up as a singleton (InstanceContextMode.Single) and non-reentrant (ConcurrencyMode.Single) then only one request will ever be processed at a time across all users.
Update: Doing some doco reading:
WCF services aren't enrolled into ASP.Net sessions unless you ask for it (using )
WCF services can on a per service basis opt in, using the [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements] attribute on the service implementation
There doesn't seem to be any way of opting in but not opting into Session state.
There's a good blog post about this on Wenlong Dong's site
So from what I can see you should be able to use AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.NotAllowed to opt out individual services completely from ASP.Net services. Alternatively, leave it off by default and only opt-in the ones that need access to the ASP.Net session (bearing in mind that unless you really need to share the same session with ASP.Net, just using WCF's session services is probably a better bet).
I'm wondering if it is a good approach in the ASP.NET project if I set a field which "holds" a connection to a DB as a static field (Entity Framework)
public class DBConnector
{
public static AdServiceDB db;
....
}
That means it'll be only one object for entire application to communicate with a DB. I'm also wondering about if that object will be refreshing data changes from DB tables, or maybe it shouldn't be static and I shoud create a connection dyniamically. What do You think ?
With connection pooling in .NET, generally creating a new connection for each request is acceptable. I'd evaluate the performance of creating a new one each time, and if it isn't a bottleneck, then avoid using the static approach. I have tried it before, and while I haven't run into any issues, it doesn't seem to help much.
A singleton connection to a database that is used across multiple web page requests from multiple users presents a large risk of cross-contamination of personal information across users. It doesn't matter what the performance impact is, this is a huge security risk.
If you don't have users or personal information, perhaps this doesn't apply to your project right now, but always keep it in mind. Databases and the information they contain tend to evolve in the direction of more specifics and more details over time.
This is why you should not use a singleton design pattern with your database connection
Hope it helps
Is using a singleton for the connection a good idea in ASP.NET website
Bad idea. Besides the potential mistakes you could make by not closing connections properly and so forth, accessing a static object makes it very difficult to unit test your code. I'd suggest using a class that implements an interface, and then use dependency injection to get an instance of that class wherever you need it. If you determine that you want it to be a singleton, that can be determined in your DI bindings, not as a foundational point of your architecture.
I would say no.
A database connection should be created when needed to run a query and cleaned up after that query is done and the results are fetched.
If you use a single static instance to control all access to the DB, you may lose out on the automatic Connection Pooling that .NET provides (which could impact performance).
I think the recommendation is to "refresh often."
Since none of the answers have been marked as an answer and I don't believe any have really addressed question or issue thereof...
In ASP.NET, you have Global or HttpApplication. The way this works is that IIS will cache instances of your "application" (that is an instance of your Global class). Normally (default settings in IIS) you could have up to 10 instances of Global and IIS will pick any one of these instances in order to satisfy a request.
Further, keep in mind that, there could be multiple requests at any given moment in time. Which means multiple instances of your Global class will be used. These instances could be ones that were previously instantiated and cached or new instances (depending on the load your IIS server is seeing).
IIS also has a notion of App Pools and worker processes. A Worker process will host your application and all the instances of your Global classes (as discussed earlier). So this translates to an App Domain (in .NET terms).
Just to re-cap before moving on…
Multiple instances of your Global class will exist in the Worker process for your application (in IIS). Each one waiting to be called upon by IIS to satisfy a request. IIS will pick any one of these instances. They are effectively threads that have been cached by IIS and each thread has an instance of your Global class. When a request comes in, one of these threads is called upon to handle the request-response cycle. If multiple requests arrive simultaneously, then multiple threads (each contains an instance of your Global class) will be called upon to satisfy each of those requests.
Moving on…
Since there will be only one instance of a static class per App Domain you'll effectively have one instances of your class shared across all (up to 10) instances of Global. This is a bad idea because when multiple simultaneous requests hit your server they'll either be blocked (if your class’s methods use locks) or threads will be stepping on each other’s toes. In other words, this approach is not inherently thread-safe and if you make it thread safe using thread synchronization primitives then you’re unnecessarily blocking threads, negatively impacting performance and scalability of your web application, with no gain whatsoever.
The real solution (and I use this in all my ASP.NET apps) is to have an instance of your BLL or DAL (as the case may be) per instance of Global. This will ensure the following:
1. Multiple threads are not an issue since IIS guarantees one request-response per instance of Global) at any given moment in time. So you’re code is inherently threads-safe.
2. You only have up to 10 instances of your BLL/DAL up and running at any given moment in time ensuring that you're not constantly creating and disposing instances of (typically) large objects to satisfy each request, which on busy sites is huge
3. You get really good performance well due to #2 above.
You do have to ensure that your BLL/DAL is truly stateless or that you reset any state at the start of each Request-Response cycle. You can use the BeginRequest event in Global to do that is you need to.
If you go down this route, be sure to read my blog post on this
Instantiating Business Layers – ASP.NET
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.