Most if not all of the NSB examples for ASP.NET (or MVC) have the web application sending a message using Bus.Send and possibly registering for a simple callback, which is essentially how I'm using it in my application.
What I'm wondering is if it's possible and/or makes any sense to handle messages in the same ASP.NET application.
The main reason I'm asking is caching. The process might go something like this:
User initiates a request from the web app.
Web app sends a message to a standalone app server, and logs the change in a local database.
On future page requests from the same user, the web app is aware of the change and lists it in a "pending" status.
A bunch of stuff happens on the back-end and eventually the requests gets approved or rejected. An event is published referencing the original request.
At this point, the web app should start displaying the most recent information.
Now, in a real web app, it's almost a sure thing that this pending request is going to be cached, quite possibly for a long period of time, because otherwise the app has to query the database for pending changes every time the user asks for the current info.
So when the request finally completes on the back-end - which might take a minute or a day - the web app needs, at a minimum, to invalidate this cache entry and do another DB lookup.
Now I realize that this can be managed with SqlDependency objects and so on, but let's assume that they aren't available - perhaps it's not a SQL Server back-end or perhaps the current-info query goes to a web service, whatever. The question is, how does the web app become aware of the change in status?
If it is possible to handle NServiceBus messages in an ASP.NET application, what is the context of the handler? In other words, the IoC container is going to have to inject a bunch of dependencies, but what is their scope? Does this all execute in the context of an HTTP request? Or does everything need to be static/singleton for the message handler?
Is there a better/recommended approach to this type of problem?
I've wondered the same thing myself - what's an appropriate level of coupling for a web app with the NServiceBus infrastructure? In my domain, I have a similar problem to solve involving the use of SignalR in place of a cache. Like you, I've not found a lot of documentation about this particular pattern. However, I think it's possible to reason through some of the implications of following it, then decide if it makes sense in your environment.
In short, I would say that I believe it is entirely possible to have a web application subscribe to NServiceBus events. I don't think there would be any technical roadblocks, though I have to confess I have not actually tried it - if you have the time, by all means give it a shot. I just get the strong feeling that if one starts needing to do this, then there is probably a better overall design waiting to be discovered. Here's why I think this is so:
A relevant question to ask relates to your cache implementation. If it's a distributed or centralized model (think SQL, MongoDB, Memcached, etc), then the approach that #Adam Fyles suggests sounds like a good idea. You wouldn't need to notify every web application - updating your cache can be done by a single NServiceBus endpoint that's not part of your web application. In other words, every instance of your web application and the "cache-update" endpoint would access the same shared cache. If your cache is in-process however, like Microsoft's Web Cache, then of course you are left with a much trickier problem to solve unless you can lean on Eventual Consistency as was suggested.
If your web app subscribes to a particular NServiceBus event, then it becomes necessary for you to have a unique input queue for each instance of your web app. Since it's best practice to consider scale-out of your web app using a load balancer, that means that you could end up with N queues and at least N subscriptions, which is more to worry about than a constant number of subscriptions. Again, not a technical roadblock, just something that would make me raise an eyebrow.
The David Boike article that was linked raises an interesting point about app pools and how their lifetimes might be uncertain. Also, if you have multiple app pools running simultaneously for the same application on a server (a common scenario), they will all be trying to read from the same message queue, and there's no good way to determine which one will actually handle the message. More of then than not, that will matter. Sending commands, in contrast, does not require an input queue according to this post by Udi Dahan. This is why I think one-way commands sent by web apps are much more commonly seen in practice.
There's a lot to be said for the Single Responsibility Principle here. In general, I would say that if you can delegate the "expertise" of sending and receiving messages to an NServiceBus Host as much as possible, your overall architecture will be cleaner and more manageable. Through experience, I've found that if I treat my web farm as a single entity, i.e. strip away all acknowledgement of individual web server identity, that I tend to have less to worry about. Having each web server be an endpoint on the bus kind of breaks that notion, because now "which server" comes up again in the form of message queues.
Does this help clarify things?
An endpoint(NSB) can be created to subscribe to the published event and update the cache. The event shouldn't be published until the actual update is made so you don't get out of sync. The web app would continue to pull data from the cache on the next request, or you can build in some kind of delay.
Related
i have a bit theoretical question.
When creating web applications, there is difference to desktop applications with working and active connection to database. So im curious if there is some solution, which can provide more desktop-like access to database e.g. transactions on asynchronous requests from client (web browser)?
edit:
So i figured out, that there can be a transaction process of asynchronous request, from client. Is there solution, which can provide it in web apps?
e.g I have assynchronou ajax call, which consist of multiple operations, and i wana to process them as transaction. If everything is okay, operations will be all done. But if one of them fail, just rollback it. Like its in DB. Is it possible?
edit2: maybe im wrong and the issue is not about ajax, but about whole web applications, but i dont think there is a way how to make a asynchronnous request from web client.
Transaction need continuous connection to database. To make it work with web application you need a platform which allow the application to run continuously independent of client request. Java servlet is best fit, php is a no-no. So I asume you will use java servlet.
In java servlet, you can create a db transaction, create an id for it, and then store them in a static variable or in the provided application-wide object, context. Then, return the id to the client.
When the client want to send another request, make it send the id. The application then can locate the transaction variable based on the id. As long as the application doesn't restarted between the two requests, the transaction is still there and active.
Because web application don't know when the user leave the application, you must create a mechanism to check the transactions periodically, and then rollback it if the user leave them for a specified time period.
The database has no knowledge of who is connected outside of authentication.
I'm designing a database monitoring application. Basically, the database will be hosted in the cloud and record-level access to it will be provided via custom written clients for Windows, iOS, Android etc. The basic scenario can be implemented via web services (ASP.NET WebAPI). For example, the client will make a GET request to the web service to fetch an entry. However, one of the requirements is that the client should automatically refresh UI, in case another user (using a different instance of the client) updates the same record AND the auto-refresh needs to happen under a second of record being updated - so that info is always up-to-date.
Polling could be an option but the active clients could number in hundreds of thousands, so I'm looking for a more robust and lightweight (on server) solution. I'm versed in .NET and C++/Windows and I could roll-out a complete solution in C++/Windows using IO Completion Ports but feel like that would be an overkill and require too much development time. Looked into ASP.NET WebAPI but not being able to send out notifications is its limitation. Are there any frameworks/technologies in Windows ecosystem that can address this scenario and scale easily as well? Any good options outside windows ecosystem e.g. node.js?
You did not specify a database that can be used so if you are able to use MSSQL Server, you may want to lookup SQL Dependency feature. IF configured and used correctly, you will be notified if there are any changes in the database.
Pair this with SignalR or any real-time front-end framework of your choice and you'll have real-time updates as you described.
One catch though is that SQL Dependency only tells you that something changed. Whatever it was, you are responsible to track which record it is. That adds an extra layer of difficulty but is much better than polling.
You may want to search through the sqldependency tag here at SO to go from here to where you want your app to be.
My first thought was to have webservice call that "stays alive" or the html5 protocol called WebSockets. You can maintain lots of connections but hundreds of thousands seems too large. Therefore the webservice needs to have a way to contact the clients with stateless connections. So build a webservice in the client that the webservices server can communicate with. This may be an issue due to firewall issues.
If firewalls are not an issue then you may not need a webservice in the client. You can instead implement a server socket on the client.
For mobile clients, if implementing a server socket is not a possibility then use push notifications. Perhaps look at https://stackoverflow.com/a/6676586/4350148 for a similar issue.
Finally you may want to consider a content delivery network.
One last point is that hopefully you don't need to contact all 100000 users within 1 second. I am assuming that with so many users you have quite a few servers.
Take a look at Maximum concurrent Socket.IO connections regarding the max number of open websocket connections;
Also consider whether your estimate of on the order of 100000 of simultaneous users is accurate.
I've got an ASP.NET website that calls an ASP.NET web service.
How can I detect a resubmitted SOAP message? Is that something I need to worry about if the app and the service are both .NET and on the same server?
Since .NET creates the proxy and takes care of the SOAP details, how can you detect resubmitted SOAP messages?
I can't speak to the specifics of ASP.NET, it might have some "magic" to help in this area, but generally your Web Services need to be designed to be resilient to duplicate requests unless there is cleverness in the infrastructure.
There are several scenarios:
The Web App makes a service call. Does the infrastructure make any any attempts to retry if an answer does not come in a certain time? I don't know what ASP.NET does here, my guess is "no", but that is very much a guess. Equally your Web App itself might choose to retry. In either case we might get exactly the same request sent twice. Any responsibility for detecting the duplicate request would lie with the server. This is very much easier if the request contains some unique label.
A second scenario is the "impatient user" scenario. The user hits submit too often. A well designed Web App will prevent this or detect this and not resubmit the web service. In this case the Service should not see any duplicate.
A more difficult scenario is the "did you really mean to buy two Rolls Royces?" The customer submits a request, let's pretend it's a high value request. Then their computer crashes, or they lose connectivity. Later, maybe even from a different computer, the user attempts the same purchase, not realising that the first one actually worked. Now that's a hard one to spot, and many vendors don't even try, but in some scenarios you need to make a really clever service with the duplicate detection being quite sophisticated pattern matching - for really high value customers this extra effort may be essential.
I was discussing load-balancing with a colleague at lunch. I admit that I know very little about this topic. We were discussing the various ways of maintaing session in a ASP.NET application -- none of which suited the high performance load balancing that he was looking for.
What about Silverlight? says I. As far as I know it is stateless, you've got the app running in the browser and you've got services on the server that feed/process data.
Does Silverlight totally negate the need for Session state management? Is it more friendly to load-balancing? Is it something in between?
I would say that Silverlight is likely to be a little more load-balancer friendly than ASP.NET. You have much more sophisticated mechanisms for maintaining state (such as isolated local storage), and pretty much, you only need to talk to the server when (a) you initially download the application, and then (b) when you make a web service call to retrieve or update data. It's analogous in this sense to an Ajax application written entirely in C#.
To put it another way, so long as either (a) your server-side persistence layer knows who your client is, or (b) you pass in all relevant data on each WCF call, it doesn't matter which web server instance the call goes to. You don't have to muck about with firewall-level persistence to make sure your HTTP call goes back to the right web server.
I'd say it depends on your application. If it's a banking application,then yes I want something timingout out after 5 minutes and asking for my password again. If it's facebook then not so much.
Silverlight depends on XMLHttpRequest like any other ajax impelementation and is therefore capable of maintaining a session, forms authentiction, roles, profiles etc etc.
The benefit you are getting is obviating virtually all of the traffic. json requests are negligable compared to serving pages. Even the .xap can be cached on the client.
I would say you are getting the best of both worlds in regards to your question.
I'm building UI logging into a long-existing ASP.NET enterprise application. I have my own ideas of how to progress from here and am continuing to research & design. But I'd love to hear some details from the SO community.
Here are the details, assumptions and questions as of right now, subject to evolve within the enterprise as well as whatever input comes in here on SO:
Would prefer to have a consistent DB connection since there will be a lot of activity
Will probably use the ThreadPool, but will this conflict too much with ASP.NET vying for threads?
Possibly use in-memory queue (Queue) for logging batches of inputs periodically? (one per domain)
Will need to be configurable. IE: Could log all page events during their normal postback calls, or hook individual control actions or events to being logged whether there's a postback or not. IE: User collapses a panel.
All "high-visibility" UI events that'll already be posting back as well as other events that won't necessarilly post back right away. Have a client batch of events and send occasionally?
How do we minimize the impact on existing code?
Have "fly on the wall" AJAX functionality that posts back accordingly? It'll basically be watching all that's been configured to be logged.
Logging must be ordered for reporting a user's step-by-step progress from point A to B in a workflow.
How about a WCF service that does the actual logging, paired with a PostSharp attribute. In your PostSharp attribute you can call asynchronously to you WCF service while your application hums along. I've implemented something like this in past projects and it works great with little if no slowing down.
http://www.postsharp.org/
Why not use log4net? You could capture a userid, sessionid, and any additional information you need to track step-by-step progress. You could configure the levels so that you could reduce the logging if it impacted performance. I wouldn't consider re-inventing the wheel by writing your own framework when there are several viable existing logging frameworks.