Using a SignalR hub clients can be added or removed from a group. A client can belong to multiple groups. Is it possible to remove a client from every group it currently belongs to? I guess what I'm looking for is something like Clients[*allgroups*].leave(Context.ConnectionId)
As of v0.5.2, there is no way to leave all groups because the server doesn't keep track of the groups a client belongs to. You need to do this yourself and remove the client from each group one-by-one.
There's a request for something similar in the backlog however, so maybe this will be implemented in a future release: https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR/issues/66
Looks like they have yet to implement this, but it is considered a candidate for v3. A feature request with the following code exists at https://github.com/SignalR/SignalR/issues/66
public static class SignalRConnectionToGroupsMap
{
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, List<string>> Map = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, List<string>>();
public static bool TryAddGroup(string connectionId, string groupName)
{
List<string> groups;
if (!Map.TryGetValue(connectionId, out groups))
{
return Map.TryAdd(connectionId, new List<string>() {groupName});
}
if (!groups.Contains(groupName))
{
groups.Add(groupName);
}
return true;
}
// since for this use case we will only want to get the List of group names
// when we're removing the mapping - we might as well remove the mapping while
// we're grabbing the List
public static bool TryRemoveConnection(string connectionId, out List<string> result)
{
return Map.TryRemove(connectionId, out result);
}
}
Related
I have an aggregate root like this:
Aggregate root:
#NoArgsConstructor
#Aggregate(repository = "positionAggregateRepository")
#AggregateRoot
#XSlf4j
#Data
public class HopAggregate {
#AggregateIdentifier
private String hopId;
private FilteredPosition position;
private LocalDate positionDate;
#AggregateMember
private Security security;
#CommandHandler
public HopAggregate(NewHopCommand cmd) {
log.info("creating new position , {}", cmd.getDateId());
apply(new HopEvent(cmd.getHopId(), cmd.getDateId(), cmd.getFilteredPosition(), cmd.getSecurity(), false));
}
#CommandHandler
public void handle(UpdateHopCommand cmd) {
log.info("creating hop update event {}", cmd);
apply(new HopEvent(this.hopId, this.positionDate, cmd.getFilteredPosition(), this.security, true));
}
#CommandHandler
public void handle(SecurityUpdate cmd) {
log.info("updating security {}", cmd);
apply(new SecurityUpdateEvent(this.hopId, cmd.getFilteredSecurity()));
}
#EventSourcingHandler
public void on(HopEvent evt) {
if (evt.getIsUpdate()) {
log.info("updating position {}", evt);
this.position = evt.getFilteredPosition();
} else {
log.info("adding new position to date {}", evt);
this.hopId = evt.getHopId();
this.positionDate = evt.getDate();
this.position = evt.getFilteredPosition();
this.security= evt.getSecurity();
}
}
#EventSourcingHandler
public void on(SecurityUpdateEvent evt) {
log.info("hop id {}, security update {}", this.hopId, evt.getFilteredSecurity().getSecurityId());
}
}
Child entity:
#XSlf4j
#Data
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#NoArgsConstructor
public class IpaSecurity implements Serializable {
#EntityId
#NonNull
private String id;
#NonNull
private FilteredSecurity security;
}
My issue is that when i am pushing and update like this:
#EventHandler
public void handleSecurityEvent(SecurityUpdate securityUpdate) {
log.info("got security event {}", securityUpdate);
commandGateway.send(securityUpdate);
}
and my command being:
#Data
#RequiredArgsConstructor
#NoArgsConstructor
#ToString
public class SecurityUpdate {
#NonNull
#TargetAggregateIdentifier
private String id;
#NonNull
private FilteredSecurity filteredSecurity;
}
I am getting aggregate root not found exception:
Command 'com.hb.apps.ipa.events.SecurityUpdate' resulted in org.axonframework.modelling.command.AggregateNotFoundException(The aggregate was not found in the event store)
I am not sure how to handle this scenario. My requirement is that each aggregate should check whether it contains the security and then update it if the command was issued. What am i missing? let me know if you need any more info on the code.
Thanks for your help.
A Command is always targeted towards a single entity.
This entity can be an Aggregate, an entity contained in an Aggregate (what Axon Framework calls an Aggregate Member) or a simple singleton component.
Important to note though, is that there will only be one entity handling the command.
This is what requires you to set the #TargetAggregateIdentifier in your Command for Axon to be able to route it to a single Aggregate instance if the Command Handler in question is part of it.
The AggregateNotFoundException you're getting signals that the #TargetAggregateIdentifier annotated field in your SecurityUpdate command does no correspond to any existing Aggregate.
I'd thus suspect that the id field in the SecurityUpdate does not correspond to any #AggregateIdentifier annotated field in your HopAggregate aggregates.
A part from the above, I have a couple of other suggestions when looking at your snippets which I'd like to share with you:
#Aggregate is meta-annotated with #AggregateRoot. You're thus not required to specify both on an Aggregate class
For logging messages being handled, you can utilize LoggingInterceptor. You can configure this on any component capable of handling messages, thus providing a universal way of logging. This will omit the necessity to add log lines in your message handling functions
You're publishing a HopEvent on both the create and update commands. Doing so makes your HopEvent very generic. Ideally, your events clarify business operations occurring in your system. My rule of thumb typically is such: "If I tell my business manager/customer about the event class, he/she should know exactly what it does". I'd thus suggest to rename the event to something more specific
Just as with the HopEvent, the UpdateHopCommand is quite generic. Your commands should express the intent to perform an operation in your application. Users will typically not desire an update, they desire an address change for example. Your commands classes ideally reflect this
The suggested naming convention for commands is to start with verb in the present tense. Thus, it should no be SecurityUpdate, but UpdateSecurity. A command is a request expressing intent, the messages ideally reflect this
Hope this helps you out #juggernaut!
I'm trying to implement a web application using ASP.NET MVC and the Microsoft Unity DI framework. The application needs to support multiple user sessions at the same time, each of them with their own connection to a separate database (but all users using the same DbContext; the database schemas are identical, it's just the data that is different).
Upon a user's log-in, I register the necessary type mappings to the application's Unity container, using a session-based lifetime manager that I found in another question here.
My container is initialized like this:
// Global.asax.cs
public static UnityContainer CurrentUnityContainer { get; set; }
protected void Application_Start()
{
// ...other code...
CurrentUnityContainer = UnityConfig.Initialize();
// misc services - nothing data access related, apart from the fact that they all depend on IRepository<ClientContext>
UnityConfig.RegisterComponents(CurrentUnityContainer);
}
// UnityConfig.cs
public static UnityContainer Initialize()
{
UnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new UnityDependencyResolver(container));
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new Unity.WebApi.UnityDependencyResolver(container);
return container;
}
This is the code that's called upon logging in:
// UserController.cs
UnityConfig.RegisterUserDataAccess(MvcApplication.CurrentUnityContainer, UserData.Get(model.AzureUID).CurrentDatabase);
// UnityConfig.cs
public static void RegisterUserDataAccess(IUnityContainer container, string databaseName)
{
container.AddExtension(new DataAccessDependencies(databaseName));
}
// DataAccessDependencies.cs
public class DataAccessDependencies : UnityContainerExtension
{
private readonly string _databaseName;
public DataAccessDependencies(string databaseName)
{
_databaseName = databaseName;
}
protected override void Initialize()
{
IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder = Container.Resolve<IConfigurationBuilder>();
Container.RegisterType<ClientContext>(new SessionLifetimeManager(), new InjectionConstructor(configurationBuilder.GetConnectionString(_databaseName)));
Container.RegisterType<IRepository<ClientContext>, RepositoryService<ClientContext>>(new SessionLifetimeManager());
}
}
// SessionLifetimeManager.cs
public class SessionLifetimeManager : LifetimeManager
{
private readonly string _key = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
public override void RemoveValue(ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session.Remove(_key);
}
public override void SetValue(object newValue, ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[_key] = newValue;
}
public override object GetValue(ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[_key];
}
protected override LifetimeManager OnCreateLifetimeManager()
{
return new SessionLifetimeManager();
}
}
This works fine as long as only one user is logged in at a time. The data is fetched properly, the dashboards work as expected, and everything's just peachy keen.
Then, as soon as a second user logs in, disaster strikes.
The last user to have prompted a call to RegisterUserDataAccess seems to always have "priority"; their data is displayed on the dashboard, and nothing else. Whether this is initiated by a log-in, or through a database access selection in my web application that calls the same method to re-route the user's connection to another database they have permission to access, the last one to draw always imposes their data on all other users of the web application. If I understand correctly, this is a problem the SessionLifetimeManager was supposed to solve - unfortunately, I really can't seem to get it to work.
I sincerely doubt that a simple and common use-case like this - multiple users logged into an MVC application who each are supposed to access their own, separate data - is beyond the abilities of Unity, so obviously, I must be doing something very wrong here. Having spent most of my day searching through depths of the internet I wasn't even sure truly existed, I must, unfortunately, now realize that I am at a total and utter loss here.
Has anyone dealt with this issue before? Has anyone dealt with this use-case before, and if yes, can anyone tell me how to change my approach to make this a little less headache-inducing? I am utterly desperate at this point and am considering rewriting my entire data access methodology just to make it work - not the healthiest mindset for clean and maintainable code.
Many thanks.
the issue seems to originate from your registration call, when registering the same type multiple times with unity, the last registration call wins, in this case, that will be data access object for whoever user logs-in last. Unity will take that as the default registration, and will create instances that have the connection to that user's database.
The SessionLifetimeManager is there to make sure you get only one instance of the objects you resolve under one session.
One option to solve this is to use named registration syntax to register the data-access types under a key that maps to the logged-in user (could be the database name), and on the resolve side, retrieve this user key, and use it resolve the corresponding data access implementation for the user
Thank you, Mohammed. Your answer has put me on the right track - I ended up finally solving this using a RepositoryFactory which is instantiated in an InjectionFactory during registration and returns a repository that always wraps around a ClientContext pointing to the currently logged on user's currently selected database.
// DataAccessDependencies.cs
protected override void Initialize()
{
IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder = Container.Resolve<IConfigurationBuilder>();
Container.RegisterType<IRepository<ClientContext>>(new InjectionFactory(c => {
ClientRepositoryFactory repositoryFactory = new ClientRepositoryFactory(configurationBuilder);
return repositoryFactory.GetRepository();
}));
}
// ClientRepositoryFactory.cs
public class ClientRepositoryFactory : IRepositoryFactory<RepositoryService<ClientContext>>
{
private readonly IConfigurationBuilder _configurationBuilder;
public ClientRepositoryFactory(IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder)
{
_configurationBuilder = configurationBuilder;
}
public RepositoryService<ClientContext> GetRepository()
{
var connectionString = _configurationBuilder.GetConnectionString(UserData.Current.CurrentPermission);
ClientContext ctx = new ClientContext(connectionString);
RepositoryService<ClientContext> repository = new RepositoryService<ClientContext>(ctx);
return repository;
}
}
// UserData.cs (multiton-singleton-hybrid)
public static UserData Current
{
get
{
var currentAADUID = (string)(HttpContext.Current.Session["currentAADUID"]);
return Get(currentAADUID);
}
}
public static UserData Get(string AADUID)
{
UserData instance;
lock(_instances)
{
if(!_instances.TryGetValue(AADUID, out instance))
{
throw new UserDataNotInitializedException();
}
}
return instance;
}
public static UserData Current
{
get
{
var currentAADUID = (string)(HttpContext.Current.Session["currentAADUID"]);
return Get(currentAADUID);
}
}
public static UserData Get(string AADUID)
{
UserData instance;
lock(_instances)
{
if(!_instances.TryGetValue(AADUID, out instance))
{
throw new UserDataNotInitializedException();
}
}
return instance;
}
My application can connect with multiple data bases (every data base have the same schema), I store the current DB, selected by user, in Session and encapsule access using a static property like:
public class DataBase
{
public static string CurrentDB
{
get
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"].ToString();
}
set
{
HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"] = value;
}
}
}
Other pieces of code access the static CurrentDB to determine what DB use.
Some actions start background process in a thread and it need access the CurrentDB to do some stuff. I'm thinking using something like this:
[ThreadStatic]
private static string _threadSafeCurrentDB;
public static string CurrentDB
{
get
{
if (HttpContext.Current == null)
return _threadSafeCurrentDB;
return HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"].ToString();
}
set
{
if (HttpContext.Current == null)
_threadSafeCurrentDB = value;
else
HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"] = value;
}
}
And start thread like:
public class MyThread
{
private string _currentDB;
private thread _thread;
public MyThread (string currentDB)
{
_currentDB = currentDB;
_thread = new Thread(DoWork);
}
public DoWork ()
{
DataBase.CurrentDB = _currentDB;
... //Do the work
}
}
This is a bad practice?
Actually, I think you should be able to determine which thread uses which database, so I would create a class inherited from Thread, but aware of the database it uses. It should have a getDB() method, so, if you need a new Thread which will use the same database as used in another specific Thread, you can use it. You should be able to setDB(db) of a Thread as well.
In the session you are using a current DB approach, which assumes that there is a single current DB. If this assumption describes the truth, then you can leave it as it is and update it whenever a new current DB is being used. If you have to use several databases in the same time, then you might want to have a Dictionary of databases, where the Value would be the DB and the Key would be some kind of code which would have a sematic meaning which you could use to be able to determine which instance is needed where.
Currently, I am using a Dictionary and Context.User.Identity.Name (code condensed for brevity):
[Authorize]
public class ServiceHub : Hub
{
static private Dictionary<string, HubUserProcess> UserProcesses = new Dictionary<string, HubUserProcess>();
public override Task OnConnected()
{
UserProcesses[Context.User.Identity.Name] = new HubUserProcess();
return base.OnConnected();
}
public override Task OnDisconnected()
{
// ... Remove from dictionary if key exists (not shown) ...
return base.OnConnected();
}
// Then I use UserProcesses[Context.User.Identity.Name] in all functions
}
In my HubUserProcess class, I have a bunch of web services that initialize in the constructor using the Context.User.Identity.Name. A coworker said that my approach is unsafe, so my biggest worry is one user accessing another user's private data (these variables can hold very sensitive information). What is the correct/safe way to store client variables?
SignalR does not have the ability to have client methods which returns a value. So I am trying to create a helper class to make this possible.
So this is what I am trying to do:
Server side: Call client method and provide unique request id Client(clientId).GetValue(requestId)
Server side: Save requestId and wait for answer using ManualResetEvent
Client side: Inside void GetValue(Guid requestId) call server method hubProxy.Invoke("GetValueFinished", requestId, 10)
Server side: find waiting method by requestId => set return value => set signal
Server side: Method not longer waiting vor ManualResetEvent and returns retrieved value.
I am able to get it work unfortunately. Here is my code:
public static class MethodHandler
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<Guid, ReturnWaiter> runningMethodWaiters = new ConcurrentDictionary<Guid,ReturnWaiter>();
public static TResult GetValue<TResult>(Action<Guid> requestValue)
{
Guid key = Guid.NewGuid();
ReturnWaiter returnWaiter = new ReturnWaiter(key);
runningMethodWaiters.TryAdd(key, returnWaiter);
requestValue.Invoke(key);
returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();
return (TResult)returnWaiter.Value;
}
public static void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
ReturnWaiter waiter;
if (runningMethodWaiters.TryRemove(key, out waiter))
{
waiter.Value = value;
}
}
}
internal class ReturnWaiter
{
private ManualResetEvent _signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get { return _signal; } }
public Guid Key {get; private set;}
public ReturnWaiter(Guid key)
{
Key = key;
}
private object _value;
public object Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
_value = value;
Signal.Set();
}
}
}
Using this MethodHandler class I need to have two method server side:
public int GetValue(string clientId)
{
return MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(clientId).Client.GetValue(key));
}
public void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
MethodHandler.GetValueResult(key, value);
}
Client side implementation is like this:
// Method registration
_hubProxy.On("GetValue", new Action<Guid>(GetValue));
public void GetValue(Guid requestId)
{
int result = 10;
_hubConnection.Invoke("GetValueResult", requestId, result);
}
PROBLEM:
if I call server side GetValue("clientid"). The client method will not be invoked. If I comment out returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();, client side GetValue is called and server side GetValueResult is called. But of course this time the method has already returned.
I thought is has to do with the ManualResetEvent but even using while(!returnWaiter.HasValue) Thread.Sleep(100); will not fix this issue.
Any ideas how to fix this issue?
Thanks in advance!
First, I think that, rather than asking for help in how to make it synchronous, it would be best if you just told us what it is you're trying to do so we could suggest a proper approach to do it.
You don't show your MethodHandler::Retrieve method, but I can guess pretty much what it looks like and it's not even the real problem. I have to tell you in the nicest possible way that this is a really bad idea. It will simply never scale. This would only work with a single SignalR server instance because you're relying on machine specific resources (e.g. kernel objects behind the ManualResetEvent) to provide the blocking. Maybe you don't need to scale beyond one server to meet your requirements, but this still a terrible waste of resources even on a single server.
You're actually on the right track with the client calling back with the requestId as a correlating identifier. Why can't you use that correlation to resume logical execution of whatever process you are in the middle of on the server side? That way no resources are held around while waiting for the message to be delivered to the client, processed and then the follow up message, GetValueResult in your sample, to be sent back a the server instance.
Problem solved:
The problem only occured in Hub.OnConnected and Hub.OnDisconnected. I don't have an exact explanation why, but probably these methods must be able to finish before it will handle your method call to the client.
So I changed code:
public override Task OnConnected()
{
// NOT WORKING
Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)));
// WORKING
new Thread(() => Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)))).Start();
return base.OnConnected();
}