I need to invoke a long running task from an ASP.NET page, and allow the user to view the tasks progress as it executes.
In my current case I want to import data from a series of data files into a database, but this involves a fair amount of processing. I would like the user to see how far through the files the task is, and any problems encountered along the way.
Due to limited processing resources I would like to queue the requests for this service.
I have recently looked at Windows Workflow and wondered if it might offer a solution?
I am thinking of a solution that might look like:
ASP.NET AJAX page -> WCF Service -> MSMQ -> Workflow Service *or* Windows Service
Does anyone have any ideas, experience or have done this sort of thing before?
I've got a book that covers explicitly how to integrate WF (WorkFlow) and WCF. It's too much to post here, obviously. I think your question deserves a longer answer than can readily be answered fully on this forum, but Microsoft offers some guidance.
And a Google search for "WCF and WF" turns up plenty of results.
I did have an app under development where we used a similar process using MSMQ. The idea was to deliver emergency messages to all of our stores in case of product recalls, or known issues that affect a large number of stores. It was developed and testing OK.
We ended up not using MSMQ because of a business requirement - we needed to know if a message was not received immediately so that we could call the store, rather than just letting the store get it when their PC was able to pick up the message from the queue. However, it did work very well.
The article I linked to above is a good place to start.
Our current design, the one that we went live with, does exactly what you asked about a Windows service.
We have a web page to enter messages and pick distribution lists. - these are saved in a database
we have a separate Windows service (We call it the AlertSender) that polls the database and checks for new messages.
The store level PCs have a Windows service that hosts a WCF client that listens for messages (the AlertListener)
When the AlertSender finds messages that need to go out, it sends them to the AlertListener, which is responsible for displaying the message to the stores and playing an alert sound.
As the messages are sent, the AlertSender updates the status of the message in the database.
As stores receive the message, a co-worker enters their employee # and clicks a button to acknowledge that they've received the message. (Critical business requirement for us because if all stores don't get the message we may need to physically call them to have them remove tainted product from shelves, etc.)
Finally, our administrative piece has a report (ASP.NET) tied to an AlertId that shows all of the pending messages, and their status.
You could have the back-end import process write status records to the database as it completes sections of the task, and the web-app could simply poll the database at arbitrary intervals, and update a progress-bar or otherwise tick off tasks as they're completed, whatever is appropriate in the UI.
Related
This is a theoretical question.
imagine an aspnet website. by clicking a button site sends mail.now:
I can send mail async with code
I can send mail using QueueBackgroundWorkItem
I can call a ONEWAY webservice located in same website
I can call a ONEWAY webservice located in ANOTHER website (or another subdomain)
none of above solutions wait for mail operation to be completed.so they are fine.
my question is why I should use service solution instead of other solutions. is there an advantage ?
4th solution adds additional tcpip traffic to use service its not efficient right ?
if so, using service under same web site (3rd solution) also generates additional traffic. is that correct ?
I need to understand why people using services under same website ? Is there any reason besides make something available to ajax calls ?
any information would be great. I really need to get opinions.
best
The most appropriate architecture will depend on several factors:
the volume of emails that needs to be sent
the need to reuse the email sending capability beyond the use case described
the simplicity of implementation, deployment, and maintenance of the code
Separating out the sending of emails in a service either in the same or another web application will make it available to other applications and from client side code. It also adds some complexity to the code calling the service as it will need to deal with the case when the service is not available and handle errors that may occur when placing the call.
Using a separate web application for the service is useful if the volume of emails sent is really large as it allows to offload the work to one or servers if needed. Given the use case given (user clicks on a button), this seems rather unlikely, unless the web site will have really large traffic. Creating a separate web application adds significant development, deployment and maintenance work, initially and over time.
Unless the volume of emails to be sent is really large (millions per day) or there is a need to reuse the email capability in other systems, creating the email sending function within the same web application (first two options listed in the question) is almost certainly the best way to go. It will result in the least amount of initial work, is easy to deploy, and (perhaps most importantly) will be the easiest to maintain.
An important concern to pay significant attention to when implementing an email sending function is the issue of robustness. Robustness can be achieved with any of the possible architectures and is somewhat of an different concern as the one emphasized by the question. However, it is important to consider the proper course of action needed if (1) the receiving SMTP refuses the take the message (e.g., mailbox full; non-existent account; rejection as spam) and (2) an NDR is generated after the message is sent (e.g., rejection as spam). Depending on the kind of email sent, it may be OK to ignore these errors or some corrective action may be needed (e.g., retry sending, alert the user at the origination of the emails, ...)
Given that the web is a very one-way synchronous architecture, is there any benefit to an NSB-enabled web application using MVC4?
I love the fault tolerance and ease of development that comes with NSB, but since the technology is all about one-way asynchronous messaging, how can I design my application around it in such a way that the user doesn't (often) notice their commands not being complete by the time a postback occurs? What paradigm should I adopt in designing my UI to naturally fit the curvature of NServiceBus?
Indeed, it seems NSB is an unnecessary complexity between a website and its SQL store because users always assume the "work" is done when their browser is done refreshing. Am I wrong in this regard?
Edit: I've seen other solutions whereby each command handler publishes an event when the work is done by the NSB service, and that event handlers on the ASP.NET project will create "stub files" that a Java-script enabled page is constantly polling to indicate that an operation completed. Is this the only way to bridge the gap between one way sync and async platforms?
NServiceBus fits in quite nicely with any web front-end. You are just going to need to be aware of how asynchronous message processing affects your UI. In most instances one could simply indicate to the user that the request has been accepted and will be processed. But in other cases you may need to forgo eventual consistency for immediately consistent.
For instance, for user registration I typically check availability of the user name and then register the user immediately but I send a command to e-mail the activation message so that the user does not have to wait for that. The user will eventually receive their e-mail. So a message is displayed indicating that an e-mail will be sent and that they need to click the activation link even though the mail may only be sent in 5 minutes.
Another example is an application where the user could convert various document formats to TIFF. The request would be sent and the web front-end would poll to wait for the result of the conversion and then display the converted pages.
So it is going to affect how your UI/UX works. It is definitely still useful and in some instances makes your life a whole lot easier.
In my case I used my FOSS Shuttle Service Bus: http://shuttle.codeplex.com/ --- but the concepts apply anyway.
NServiceBus has hooks into the typical MVC web application that allow you to cause the user's postback to wait until a response arrives over the bus. See the AsyncPages sample to see how it's done.
I would like to know the best way to deal with long running processes started on demand from an ASP.NET webpage.
The process may consist of various steps (like upload files to the server, run SSIS packages on them, execute some stored procedures etc.) and sometimes the process could take up to couple of hours to finish.
If I go for asynchronous execution using a WCF service, then what happens if the user closes the browser while the process is running, how the process success or failure result should be displayed to the user? To solve this, I choose one-way WCF service calls, but the problem with this is I need to create a process table and store the result (and error messages if it fails in any of the steps and which steps have completed successfully) in that table which is an additional overhead because there are many such processes with various steps that the user can invoke from the web page and user needs to be made aware of the progress (in simplest case, the status can be "process xyz running") and once it is done, the output needs to be displayed to the user (for example by running a stored procedure).
What is the best way to design the solution for this?
As I see it, you have three options
Have a long running page where the user waits for the response. If this is several hours, you're going to have many usability problems, so I wouldn't even consider it.
Create a process table to store the results of operations. Run service functions asynchronously and delegate logging the results to the service. There can be a page that the user refreshes which gets the latest results of this table.
If you really don't want to create a table, then store all the current process details in the users' session state, and have a current processes page as above. You have the possible issue that the session might timeout, or the web app might restart and you'll lose all this.
I can't see that number 2 is such a great hardship. You could make the table fairly generic to encompass all types of processes: process details could just be encoded as binary or xml and interpreted by the web application. You then have the most robust solution.
I cant say what the best way would be but using Windows Workflow Foundation for such long running processes is definitely one way to go about it.
You can do tracking of the process to see what stage it is at, even persist it if you have steps where it is awaiting user input etc.
WF provides a lot of features out of the box (especially if your storage medium is SQL Server) and may be a good option to consider.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WF/WF4Extensions.aspx might help give you some more insight into the same.
I think you are in the right track. You should run the process asynchronously, store the execution somewhere (a table), and keep status of the running process in there.
Your user should see a pending display label while the process is executing, and a finished label with the result when the process finished. If the user closed the browser, she will see the result of her running process next time she logs in.
We have an ASP.Net application that provides administrators to work with and perform operations on large sets of records. For example, we have a "Polish Data" task that an administrator can perform to clean up data for a record (e.g. reformat phone numbers, social security numbers, etc.) When performed on a small number of records, the task completes relatively quickly. However, when a user performs the task on a larger set of records, the task may take several minutes or longer to complete. So, we want to implement these kinds of tasks using some kind of asynchronous pattern. For example, we want to be able to launch the task, and then use AJAX polling to provide a progress bar and status information.
I have been looking into using the BackgroundWorker class, but I have read some things online that make me pause. I would love to get some additional advice on this.
For example, I understand that the BackgroundWorker will actually use the thread pool from the current application. In my case, the application is an ASP.Net web site. I have read that this can be a problem because when the application recycles, the background workers will be terminated. Some of the jobs I mentioned above may take 3 minutes, but others may take a few hours.
Also, we may have several hundred administrators all performing similar operations during the day. Will the ASP.Net application thread pool be able to handle all of these background jobs efficiently while still performing it's normal request processing?
So, I am trying to determine if using the BackgroundWorker class and approach is right for our needs. Should I be looking at an alternative approach?
Thanks and sorry for such a long post!
Kevin
In your case it actually sounds like the solution you will be looking for is multifaceted (and not a simple in and done project).
Since you said that some processes can last for hours that is absolutely not something for ASP.NET to own. This should be ran inside a windows service and managed with native windows threading.
You will need to implement some type of work queue in your service and a way to communicate with the queue. One way is to expose a WCF service for all actions your service will govern. Another would be to have service poll a database table and pick up work from the table.
To be able express the status of the process you will want the ASP.NET application to be able to have some reference to the processID for example the WCF service returns a guid identifier. Then you have a method that when you give it the processID it will return the status of the process. You can then implement the polling of that service call using AJAX and display any type of modal you wish.
Another thing to remember is that you need to design your processes to have knowledge of where it is and where it will be when it is finished so it can track the state it's in. For example, BatchJobA is run and will have 1000 records to process. The service needs to know what record it's on or what the current % of competition is for it to be able to return information to the UI. For sql queries that take a very long time to execute this can be very problematic to accurately gauge where it is unless you do alot of pre and post processing of temp tables that you can in the middle of it read the status of the temp tables to understand where it is.
Based on what you are saying I think that BackgroundWorker is not a good choice.
Furthermore keeping this functionality as a part of your main app can be problematic, specifically because you do not want the submitted processing to be interrupted if the main app recycles. You can play with asynch processing but it still will be a part of the main app AppDomain - all of it will die if the app recycles.
I would suggest buidling a separate app implementing this functionality. In a similar situation I separated background processing to a Windows service and hosted a web service in it as a means of communication
You might consider a slightly different approach.
For example, have a command and control table in which you send commands like "REFORMAT PHONE NUMBERS" or whatever.
Then have a windows service monitoring that table. Whenever a record shows up, run the command.
This eliminates any sort of worry about a background thread. Further you have a bit more flexibility with regards to what's in the queue, order of operations including priority, etc. Finally, you would have a definitive list of what is running or needs to run.
As an option, instead of a windows service you might just use a SQL job to execute every so often to watch your control table and perform the requested action.
I'm writing an application where the user will create an appointment, and instantly get an email confirming their appointment. I'd also like to send an email the day of their appointment, to remind them to actually show up.
I'm in ASP.NET (2.0) on MS SQL . The immediate email is no problem, but I'm not sure about the best way to address the reminder email. Basically, I can think of three approaches:
Set up a SQL job that runs every night, kicking off SQL emails to people that have appointments that day.
Somehow send the email with a "do not deliver before" flag, although this seems like something I might be inventing.
Write another application that runs at a certain time every night.
Am I missing something obvious? How can I accomplish this?
Choice #1 would be the best option, create a table of emails to send, and update the table as you send each email. It's also best not to delete the entry but mark it as sent, you never know when you'll have a problem oneday and want to resend out emails, I've seen this happen many times in similar setups.
One caution - tightly coupling the transmission of the initial email in the web application can result in a brittle architecture (e.g. SMTP server not available) - and lost messages.
You can introduce an abstraction layer via an MSMQ for both the initial and the reminder email - and have a service sweeping the queue on a scheduled basis. The initial message can be flagged with an attribute that means "SEND NOW" - the reminder message can be flagged as "SCHEDULED" - and the sweeper simply needs to send any messages that it finds that are of the "SEND NOW" or that are "SCHEDULED" and have a toBeSentDate >= the current date. Once the message is successfully sent - the unit of work can be concluded by deleting the message from the queue.
This approach ensures messages are not lost - and enables the distribution of load to off-peak hours by adjusting the service polling interval.
As Rob Williams points out - my suggestion of MSMQ is a bit of overkill for this specific question...but it is a viable approach to keep in mind when you start looking at problems of scale - and you want (or need) to minimize/reduce database read/write activity (esepcially during peak processing periods).
Hat tip to Rob.
For every larger project I usually also create a service which performs regular or periodical tasks.
The service updates its status and time of last execution somewhere in the database, so that the information is available for applications.
For example, the application posts commands to a command queue, and the service processes them at the schedule time.
I find this solution easier to handle than SQL Server Tasks or Jobs, since it's only a single service that you need to install, rather than ensuring all required Jobs are set up correctly.
Also, as the service is written in C#, I have a more powerful programming language (plus libraries) at hand than T-SQL.
If it's really pure T-SQL stuff that needs to be handled, there will be a Execute_Daily stored procedure that the service is going to call on date change.
Create a separate batch service, as others have suggested, but use it to send ALL of the emails.
The web app should record the need to send notifications in a database table, both for the immediate notice and for the reminder notice, with both records annotated with the desired send date/time.
Using MSMQ is overkill--you already have a database and a simple application. As the complexity grows, MSMQ or something similar might help with that complexity and scalability.
The service should periodically (every few minutes to a few hours) scan the database table for notifications (emails) to send in the near future, send them, and mark them as sent if successful. You could eventually leverage this to also send text messages (SMS) or instant messages (IMs), etc.
While you are at it, you should consider using the Command design pattern, and implement this service as a reusable Command executor. I have done this recently with a web application that needs to keep real estate listing (MLS) data synchronized with a third-party provider.
Your option 2 certainly seems like something you are inventing. I know that my mail system won't hold messages for future delivery if you were to send me something like that.
I don't think you're missing anything obvious. You will need something that runs the day of the appointment to send emails. Whether that might be better as a SQL job or as a separate application would be up to your application architecture.
I would recommend the first option, using either an SQL or other application to run automatically every day to send the e-mails. It's simple, and it works.
Microsoft Office has a delivery delay feature, but I think that is an Outlook thing rather than an Exchange/Mail Server thing, so you're going to have to go with option 1 or 3. Or option 4 would be to write a service. That way you won't have to worry about scheduled tasks to get the option 3 application to run.
If you are planning on having this app hosted at a cheap hosting service (like GoDaddy), then what I'd recommend is to spin off a worker thread in Global.asax at Application_Start and having it sleep, wake-up, send emails, sleep...
Because you won't be able to run something on the SQL Server machine, and you won't be able to install your own service.
I do this, and it works fine.