I want some kind of mechanism to have more information about a caught exception. (Specifically exceptions I throw myself to abort transactions) I've looked around and pretty much the only thing I could find was "Use the info log". This to me does not seem like a good idea. For one it is cumbersome to access and find the last message. And it is limited in size so at some point the new messages won't even show up.
So my idea is the following: Create a class NuException and pass an instance of that through all methods store an instance in the class where the work methods are located. When I need to throw an exception I call a method on it similar to Global::error() but this one takes an identifier and a message.
Once I reach my catch block I can access those from my object the class that contains the work methods similarly to how CLRExceptions work.
class NuException
{
"public" str identifier;
"public" str message;
public Exception error(str _id, str _msg)
{
//set fields
return Exception::Error;
}
}
class Worker
{
"public" NuException exception;
void foo()
{
throw this.exception.error("Foo", "Record Foo already exists");
}
void bar()
{
this.foo();
}
}
void Job()
{
Worker w = new Worker();
try
{
w.bar(ex);
}
catch (Exception::Error)
{
info(w.exception().message());
}
}
It works but isn't there a better way? Surely someone must have come up with a solution to work around this shortcoming in AX?
Short answer: yes.
While your "brilliant" scheme "works", it gets boring pretty fast, as you now must transport your NuException object deep down 20 level from the listener (job) to the thrower (foo). Your bar method and other middle men has no interest or knowledge about your exception scheme but must pass it on anyway.
This is no longer the case after the update.
There are several ways to go.
Use an observer pattern like the Event broker or in AX 2012 and newer use delegates.
Stick to the infolog system and you use an InfoAction class to peggy bag your information to be used later. It can be used to display a stack trace or other interesting information.
Use a dedicated table for logging.
The third way may seem impractical, as any errors will undo the insert in the log. This is the default behavior but can be circumvented.
MyLogTable log;
Connection con = new UserConnection();
con.ttsBegin();
log.setConnection(con);
... // Set your fields
log.insert();
con.ttsCommit();
Your way to go depends on circumstances you do not mention.
I have a NavigatorContent which is displayed when the user selects an item in a DataGrid.
This NavigatorContent contains a form and an accordion displaying the related objects.
When the user presses the Save button in the NavigatorContent the form and the children should be saved to the database by calling the server through BlazeDS:
saveObjectToDB()
{
//Map the form values to the object
object.field1 = object_field1.text;
object.field2 = object_field2.selectedDate as Date;
object.relatedobject3 = comboBox.selectedItem as RelatedObject3;
//etc.....
//Loop through accordion to save the child objects
for(var i:int= 0; i < accordion.numChildren; i++ )
{
if(accordion.getChild(i) is RelatedObject1Form)
{
var formRelated1:RelatedObject1Form = accordion.getChild(i) as RelatedObject1Form;
//Map the form values to the related object
object.relatedobject1.field1 = formRelated1.relatedobject1_field1.selectedDate;
//etc...
}
if(accordion.getChild(i) is RelatedObject2Grid)
{
var gridRelated2:RelatedObject2Grid = accordion.getChild(i) as RelatedObject2Grid;
//Get dataProvider for the datagrid of the relatedObject
object.relatedobject2 = gridRelated2.object.relatedobject2;
}
}
// Call the remoting object's saveObject method
var saveObjectOperation:Operation = new Operation();
saveObjectOperation.name = "saveObject";
saveObjectOperation.arguments=[object];
ro.operations = [saveObjectOperation];
saveObjectOperation.send();
if(isNewObject)
//dispatchEvent new object
else
//dispatchEvent object updated
}
My problem is as the question states that my application freezes for a few seconds when the user presses the save button that calls this method. I guess that is because Flex is single threaded, but still i dont quite get why this method would be so computational expensive? It doesnt seem to matter if i comment out the loop that loops over the accordion children.
I tried setting the objects related objects to null before calling the remote save method, and this seemed to speed up the save method, but it provided me with some troubles later.
My conclusion is that the remote call is whats freezing up the application, and if i set the related objects to null this seems to fix the issue. But is this really necessary? The related objects aren't really that big, so i don't quite get why the remote call should freeze the application for a few seconds.
This is how i create the accordion children when the NavaigatorContent is intialized:
var relatedObjectForm:RelatedObject1Form= new RelatedObject1Form();
accordion.addChild(relatedObjectForm);
relatedObjectForm.object= object;
relatedObjectForm.ro = this.ro;
The object that i pass to the accordion children is public and [Bindable] in the NavigatorContent and in the accordion children and is initially passed from the main DataGrid. May this be a problem relating to this issue?
Any help/comments is much appreciated. This issue is starting to affect my beauty sleep ;)
My guess would be that you're spending a lot of time in the serializer. Put a trace target in the app and watch the console when it runs to see what's being sent.
The most likely problems are from DisplayObjects - if they've been added to the application they will have a reference to the application itself, and will cause some serializers to start serializing the entire app. The bindable object might have some odd events attached that eventually attach to DisplayObjects - try copying the relevant values in it into your object instead of just taking a reference to the existing object.
Im trying to connect a Flash client to BlazeDS. There has been some success with this from others using the vanilla BlazeDS setup. However I'm using the new Spring BlazeDS Integration from springsource and running aground.
The flash client actually seems to be working in that I can see the correct data in the body of the returned object, but for some reason unknown it fails casting as an IMessage. It fails in PollingChannel.as on this line with the subject line error
var messageList:Array = msg.body as Array;
for each (var message:IMessage in messageList) <--
On application load I register a whole bunch of classes like so
registerClassAlias( "flex.messaging.messages.RemotingMessage", RemotingMessage );
registerClassAlias("mx.messaging.messages.IMessage", IMessage);
etc..
my code is basically
var channelSet:mx.messaging.ChannelSet = new mx.messaging.ChannelSet();
var channel:mx.messaging.channels.AMFChannel = new AMFChannel("my-amf", "http://localhost:8400/SpringA/messagebroker/amf");
channelSet.addChannel(channel);
var consumer:mx.messaging.Consumer = new Consumer();
consumer.channelSet = channelSet;
consumer.destination = "simple-feed";
consumer.subscribe();
consumer.addEventListener(MessageEvent.MESSAGE, test);
private function test(event:IMessage)
{
trace("msg..");
// breakpoint never makes it here
}
I have a flex client which works 100% with same destination/channel.
The error in the title means that you, for some reason, got an object that is not implementing or extending the IMessage interface, therefore the loop can not cast it in this part:
for each (var message:IMessage in messageList){
Either you should somehow make sure that you don't add anything that is not extending or implementing IMessage, or check if the variable IS actually ext./imp. it. Also - if you want to do that, you will have to change the for each like this:
for each (var obj in messageList){
if (obj is IMessage){
var message:IMessage = obj as IMessage;
// DO STUFF HERE
}
}
Add this Object mapping:
registerClassAlias("flex.messaging.io.ObjectProxy", ObjectProxy);
If on your Java VO objects you have overridden the hashcode() method, this situation could happen.
Remove the hashcode() override (if you are able to).
See my blog for the backstory on how I discovered this. http://squaredi.blogspot.com/2013/12/remoting-landmine-without-stack-trace.html
I had the same error when trying to send an actionscript object to the backend. My problem was that my c# equivalent object was missing an public parameterless constructor.
I'm looking to build a library that needs to be very careful about memory management. Basically, I have to create a static factory to "disperse" instances of my tool to requesting objects. (I don't have a choice in this matter, I really do have to use a singleton) We'll call that class FooFactory. FooFactory defines a single method, getFoo(key:String):Foo.
getFoo looks in a private static flash.utils.Dictionary object for the appropriate Foo instance, and either lazy-instantiates it, or simply returns it. In any case, FooFactory MUST keep a reference to each Foo instance created, so all Foo instances can be updated by FooFactory using a method called updateFoos():void.
Here is some pseudo-code of what I'm talking about:
public class FooFactory {
private static const foos:Dictionary = new Dictionary(true); //use weak keys for gc
public static function getFoo(key:String):Foo {
//search for the specified instance in the 'foos' dictionary
if (foos[key] != null && foos[key] != undefined) {
return foos[key];
} else {
//create foo if it doesn't exist.
var foo:Foo = new Foo(key);
foos[key] = foo;
return foo;
}
}
public static function updateFoos():void {
for (var key:String in foos) {
if (foos[key] != null && foos[key] != undefined) {
Foo(foos[key]).dispatchEvent(new Event("update"));
}
}
}
}
The actual function and identity of Foo isn't too important.
What IS important is garbage collection in this situation. I created something similar to the above example in the past and had incredible garbage collection issues. (I did use an array rather than a dictionary, which could be part of the problem.) What would happen is that, in my Flex application, modules would never unload, since instances had a reference to a Foo instance which was referenced by the FooFactory, like so: (again, pseudocode)
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<s:Group>
<fx:Script>
<![CDATA[
private static const foo:Foo = FooFactory.getFoo('myfoo');
]]>
</fx:Script>
</s:Group>
What I want to know are the two following things:
Is the pseudo-code above "garbage-collector safe?" IE: Will my modules unload properly and will instances of the Group subclass above get garbage collected?
Is there a way in Flash Player (even in the debug player if need be) that can assist me in counting references so I can test if things are getting garbage collected or not?
I'm aware of the flash.sampler API, but I am not sure as to how to use it to count references.
I don't think that the pattern you presented should give you problems GC-wise.
private static const foo:Foo = FooFactory.getFoo('myfoo');
Here, your module has a reference to a Foo instance. That means that this Foo instance won't be collectable as long as your module is not collectable. The module has a reference to foo, so here foo is reachable (if the module is reachable). That's not true the other way round. Even if foo lives forever, it doesn't have a reference to the module, so it won't pint it down.
Of course there could be other stuff going on to prevent your module from being collectable, but foo is not the culprit here, unless foo gets a reference to the module somehow. For instance, the module adds a listener to foo, which for this matter, is the same as writing:
foo.addReference(this); // where this is your module
The fact that you declare the instance as const shouldn't change things per se, either. It only means that the reference stored cannot be changed at a later point. However, if you want to null out foo at some later point, you can't because that would be reassigning the reference; and you can't reassigning a const reference (you should get a compiler error). Now, this does tie foo to module. As long as your module is alive it will have a reference to foo, so foo won't be collectable.
Regarding this line:
private static const foos:Dictionary = new Dictionary(true); //use weak keys for gc
It looks like you're trying to build some kind of cache. I'm not sure you want to use weak refs here. (I could be wrong here because I'm making an assumption, and they say assumption is the mother of all... mistakes, but I digress)
In any case, the effect of this is that if a module gets a Foo and at some point the module is successfully unloaded (I mean, cleaned up from memory), that instance of foo could be collected, provided that no one else has a ref to it (that is, the only way to reach it is through the dictionary key, but since the keys are weak referenced, this ref will not count for the purposes of the GC).
Regarding your second question, I'd recommend the FlexBuilder/FlashBuilder profiler, if FB is available to you. It's not the most intuitive tool, granted, but with some practice it could be really useful to track memory problems. Basically, it will let you know how many instances of a given class were created, how many of those are still alive, what objects have references to these instances and where were all these objects allocated (an option not checked by default when you launch the profiler, buy very handy to track a leak).
PS
Regarding your comment:
Perhaps the real issue is the static
const reference bound by the Group
instance? If that's an issue, I could
simply abstract Foo to an interface,
then create something called
FooWeakReference which would use a
weak dictionary to reference the
actual Foo object. Thoughts?
Adding this extra layer of indirection only complicates things and makes your code less obvious for no gain here, I think. It's easier to consider the life-cycle of your module and define clear points of initialization and finalization. When it's finalized, make sure you remove any reference to the module added to the foo instance (i.e. if you have added listeners on foo, remove them, etc), so your module is collectable independently of the life-cycle of foo.
As a general rule, whenever a weak reference seems to solve a bug in your app, it's masking another one or covering up for a poor design; there are exceptions (and compromises that have to be made sometimes), but weak refs are abused gratuitously if you ask me; not everyone will agree, I know.
Also, weak-refs open a whole new kind of bugs: what happens if that instance you created lazily vanishes before you can use it or worse, while you are using it? Event listeners that stop working under not deterministically reproducible circumstances (e.g. you added a listener to an object that is gone), possible null references (e.g. you are trying to add a listener to an object that no longer exists), etc, etc. Don't drink the weak reference kool-aid ;).
Addedum
In conclusion, as one last question,
is it true for me to say that no AS3
solution exists for counting
references? I'm building a complete
unit-testing suite for this library
I'm building, and if I could do
something like Assert.assertEquals(0,
getReferenceCount(foo)), that would be
rad.
Well, yes. You can't get the reference count of a given object from Actionscript. Even if it were possible, I'm not sure that would help, because reference counting is only a part of how GC works. The other one is a mark and sweep algorithm. So, if an object has a zero ref-count is collectable, but it could have, say, 3 references and still be collectable. To really determine whether an object is collectable or not, you should really be able to hook into the GC routine, I guess, and that's not possible from AS.
Also, this code will never work.
Assert.assertEquals(0, getReferenceCount(foo)
Why? Here you are trying to query some API to know whether an object is collectable or not. Since you can't know that, let's assume this tells you whether an object has been collected or not. The problem is, foo at that point is either null or not null. If it's null, it's not a valid reference, so you can't get any useful information out of it, for obvious reasons. If it's not null, it's a valid reference to an object, then you can access it and it's alive; so you already know the answer to the question you're asking.
Now, I think I undestand your goal. You want to be able to tell, programatically, if you certain objects are being leaked. Up to some extent that's possible. It involves using the flash.sampler API, as you mentioned in your original question.
I suggest you check out the Flash Preload Profiler by jpauclair:
I haven't used it, but it looks like it could be just as good as the FB profiler for memory watching.
Since this is Actionscript code (and since it's open source), you could to use it for what you want. I just skimmed through the code, but I've been able to get a very simple-minded proof of concept by monkey-patching the SampleAnalyzer class:
There's a lot of other things going on in this tool, but I just modified the memory analizer to be able to return a list of the alive objects.
So, I wrote a simple class that would run this profiler. The idea is that when you create an object, you can ask this class to watch it. This objects' allocation id will be looked up in the allocated objects table maintained by the memory profiler and a handle to it will be stored locally (only the id). This id handle will also be returned for convenience. So you can store this id handle and at a later point, use it to check whether the object has been collected or not. Also, there's a method that returns a list of all the handles you added and another one that returns a list of the added handles that point to live objects. A handle will allow you to access the original object (if it hasn't been collected yet), its class and also the allocation stack trace. (I'm not storing the object itself or the NewObjectSample object to avoid accidentally pinning it down)
Now, this is important: this queries for alive objects. The fact that an object is alive doesn't mean it's not collectable. So, this alone doens't mean there's a leak. It could be alive at this point but still it doesn't mean there's a leak. So, you should combine this with forcing GC to get more relevant results. Also, this could be of use if you are watching objects that are owned by you and not shared with other code (or other modules).
So, here's the code to the ProfileRunner, with some comments.
import flash.sampler.Sample;
import flash.sampler.NewObjectSample;
import flash.utils.Dictionary;
class ProfilerRunner {
private var _watched:Array;
public function ProfilerRunner() {
_watched = [];
}
public function init():void {
// setup the analyzer. I just copied this almost verbatim
// from SamplerProfiler...
// https://code.google.com/p/flashpreloadprofiler/source/browse/trunk/src/SamplerProfiler.as
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().ResetStats();
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().ObjectStatsEnabled = true;
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().InternalEventStatsEnabled = false;
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().StartSampling();
}
public function destroy():void {
_watched = null;
}
private function updateSampling(hook:Function = null):void {
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().PauseSampling();
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().ProcessSampling();
if(hook is Function) {
var samples:Dictionary = SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().GetRawSamplesDict();
hook(samples);
}
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().ClearSamples();
SampleAnalyzer.GetInstance().ResumeSampling();
}
public function addWatch(object:Object):WatchHandle {
var handle:WatchHandle;
updateSampling(function(samples:Dictionary):void {
for each(var sample:Sample in samples) {
var newSample:NewObjectSample;
if((newSample = sample as NewObjectSample) != null) {
if(newSample.object == object) {
handle = new WatchHandle(newSample);
_watched.push(handle);
}
}
}
});
return handle;
}
public function isActive(handle:WatchHandle):Boolean {
var ret:Boolean;
updateSampling(function(samples:Dictionary):void{
for each(var sample:Sample in samples) {
var newSample:NewObjectSample;
if((newSample = sample as NewObjectSample) != null) {
if(newSample.id == handle.id) {
ret = true;
break;
}
}
}
});
return ret;
}
public function getActiveWatchedObjects():Array {
var list:Array = [];
updateSampling(function(samples:Dictionary):void {
for each(var handle:WatchHandle in _watched) {
if(samples[handle.id]) {
list.push(handle);
}
}
});
return list;
}
public function getWatchedObjects():Array {
var list:Array = [];
for each(var handle:WatchHandle in _watched) {
list.push(handle);
}
return list;
}
}
class WatchHandle {
private var _id:int;
private var _objectProxy:Dictionary;
private var _type:Class;
private var _stack:Array;
public function get id():int {
return _id;
}
public function get object():Object {
for(var k:Object in _objectProxy) {
return k;
}
return null;
}
public function get stack():Array {
return _stack;
}
public function getFormattedStack():String {
return "\t" + _stack.join("\n\t");
}
public function WatchHandle(sample:NewObjectSample) {
_id = sample.id;
_objectProxy = new Dictionary(true);
_objectProxy[sample.object] = true;
_type = sample.type;
_stack = sample.stack;
}
public function toString():String {
return "[WatchHandle id: " + _id + ", type: " + _type + ", object: " + object + "]";
}
}
And here's a simple demo of how you'd use it.
It initializes the runner, allocates 2 Foo objects and then, after 2 seconds, it finalizes itself. Note that in the finalizer, I'm nulling out one of the Foo objects and finalizing the profiler. There I try to force GC, wait for some time (GC is not synchronous) and then check if these objects are alive. The first object should return false, and the second true. So, this is the place were you'd put your assert. Keep in mind that all of this will only work in a debug player.
So, without any further addo, here's the sample code:
package {
import flash.display.Sprite;
import flash.sampler.NewObjectSample;
import flash.sampler.Sample;
import flash.system.System;
import flash.utils.Dictionary;
import flash.utils.setTimeout;
public class test extends Sprite
{
private var x1:Foo;
private var x2:Foo;
private var _profiler:ProfilerRunner;
private var _watch_x1:WatchHandle;
private var _watch_x2:WatchHandle;
public function test()
{
init();
createObjects();
setTimeout(finalize,2000);
}
public function init():void {
initProfiler();
}
public function finalize():void {
x1 = null;
finalizeProfiler();
}
private function initProfiler():void {
_profiler = new ProfilerRunner();
_profiler.init();
}
private function finalizeProfiler():void {
// sometimes, calling System.gc() in one frame doesn't work
// you have to call it repeatedly. This is a kind of lame workaround
// this should probably be hidden in the profiler runner
var count:int = 0;
var id:int = setInterval(function():void {
System.gc();
count++;
if(count >= 3) {
clearInterval(id);
destroyProfiler();
}
},100);
}
private function destroyProfiler():void {
// boolean check through saved handles
trace(_profiler.isActive(_watch_x1));
trace(_profiler.isActive(_watch_x2));
// print all objects being watched
trace(_profiler.getWatchedObjects());
// get a list of the active objects and print them, plus the alloc stack trace
var activeObjs:Array = _profiler.getActiveWatchedObjects();
for each(var handle:WatchHandle in activeObjs) {
trace(handle);
trace(handle.getFormattedStack());
}
_profiler.destroy();
}
private function createObjects():void {
x1 = new Foo();
x2 = new Foo();
// add them for watch. Also, let's keep a "handle" to
// them so we can query the profiler to know if the object
// is alive or not at any given time
_watch_x1 = _profiler.addWatch(x1);
_watch_x2 = _profiler.addWatch(x2);
}
}
}
import flash.display.Sprite;
class Foo {
public var someProp:Sprite;
}
Alternatively, a more light-weight approach for tracking alive objects is storing them in a weak-referenced dictionary, forcing GC and then checking how many objects are stil alive. Check out this answer to see how this could be implemented. The main difference is that this gives you less control, but maybe it's good enough for your purposes. Anyway, I felt like giving the other idea a shot, so I wrote this object watcher and kind of like the idea.
Since you essentially want weak references, perhaps the best solution would involve one of the weak references available in AS3.
For example, have your method store Dictionaries rather than the actual objects. Something like this:
private var allFoos:Dictionary;
public function getFoo(key:String):Foo {
var f:Foo = _getFoo(key);
if (f == null) {
f = _createFoo(key);
}
return f;
}
private function _createFoo(key:String):Foo {
var f:Foo = new Foo();
var d:Dictionary = new Dictionary(/* use weak keys */ true);
d[f] = key;
allFoos[key] = d;
}
With some intense thinking over the weekend, I believe I figured out what the problem is.
Essentially, we have this scenario:
.--------------.
| APP-DOMAIN 1 |
| [FooFactory] |
'--------------'
|
| < [object Foo]
|
.--------------.
| APP-DOMAIN 2 |
| [MyModule] |
'--------------'
APP-DOMAIN 1 always stays in memory, since it's loaded in the highest app-domain possible: the original compiled code of a SWF. APP-DOMAIN 2 is loaded into and out of memory dynamically and must be able to completely sever itself from APP-DOMAIN 1. According to the genius answer above by Juan Pablo Califano, APP-DOMAIN 2 having a reference to [object Foo] doesn't necessarily tie APP-DOMAIN 2 into memory, though it could become tied into memory by [MyModule] adding an event listener to [object Foo], right?
Okay, so, with this in mind, an overkill solution would be to return a weak-reference-implementation of Foo from the getFoo method, since that's where things need to "break off" in case of "emergency." (Things need to be weak from this perspective so that APP-DOMAIN 1 can be garbage collected completely as it is unloaded.) Again, this is an overkill answer.
However, I do not need to keep a weak-ref to Foo in FooFactory, since FooFactory needs to have a surefire way of getting a hold of each created Foo object. In short, Juan Pablo Califano has the theory completely right, it just needs to be tested in the real world in order to prove everything definitively :)
All of this aside, I believe I have uncovered the real issue behind the scenes that caused a similar library I wrote in the past to never GC. The problem was not in the actual library I wrote, but it seems that it was in a reflection library I was using. The reflection library would "cache" every Class object I threw at it, since my original FooFactory.getFoo method took a Class parameter, rather than a String. Since the library seemed to be hard-referencing every Class object passed into memory, I'm pretty sure that was the memory leak.
In conclusion, as one last question, is it true for me to say that no AS3 solution exists for counting references? I'm building a complete unit-testing suite for this library I'm building, and if I could do something like Assert.assertEquals(0, getReferenceCount(foo)), that would be rad.
I have an ASP.NET application with a lot of dynamic content. The content is the same for all users belonging to a particular client. To reduce the number of database hits required per request, I decided to cache client-level data. I created a static class ("ClientCache") to hold the data.
The most-often used method of the class is by far "GetClientData", which brings back a ClientData object containing all stored data for a particular client. ClientData is loaded lazily, though: if the requested client data is already cached, the caller gets the cached data; otherwise, the data is fetched, added to the cache and then returned to the caller.
Eventually I started getting intermittent crashes in the the GetClientData method on the line where the ClientData object is added to the cache. Here's the method body:
public static ClientData GetClientData(Guid fk_client)
{
if (_clients == null)
_clients = new Dictionary<Guid, ClientData>();
ClientData client;
if (_clients.ContainsKey(fk_client))
{
client = _clients[fk_client];
}
else
{
client = new ClientData(fk_client);
_clients.Add(fk_client, client);
}
return client;
}
The exception text is always something like "An object with the same key already exists."
Of course, I tried to write the code so that it just wasn't possible to add a client to the cache if it already existed.
At this point, I'm suspecting that I've got a race condition and the method is being executed twice concurrently, which could explain how the code would crash. What I'm confused about, though, is how the method could be executed twice concurrently at all. As far as I know, any ASP.NET application only ever fields one request at a time (that's why we can use HttpContext.Current).
So, is this bug likely a race condition that will require putting locks in critical sections? Or am I missing a more obvious bug?
If an ASP.NET application only handles one request at a time all ASP.NET sites would be in serious trouble. ASP.NET can process dozens at a time (typically 25 per CPU core).
You should use ASP.NET Cache instead of using your own dictionary to store your object. Operations on the cache are thread-safe.
Note you need to be sure that read operation on the object you store in the cache are threadsafe, unfortunately most .NET class simply state the instance members aren't thread-safe without trying to point any that may be.
Edit:
A comment to this answer states:-
Only atomic operations on the cache are thread safe. If you do something like check
if a key exists and then add it, that is NOT thread safe and can cause the item to
overwritten.
Its worth pointing out that if we feel we need to make such an operation atomic then the cache is probably not the right place for the resource.
I have quite a bit of code that does exactly as the comment describes. However the resource being stored will be the same in both places. Hence if an existing item on rare occasions gets overwritten the only the cost is that one thread unnecessarily generated a resource. The cost of this rare event is much less than the cost of trying to make the operation atomic every time an attempt to access it is made.
This is very easy to fix:
private _clientsLock = new Object();
public static ClientData GetClientData(Guid fk_client)
{
if (_clients == null)
lock (_clientsLock)
// Check again because another thread could have created a new
// dictionary in-between the lock and this check
if (_clients == null)
_clients = new Dictionary<Guid, ClientData>();
if (_clients.ContainsKey(fk_client))
// Don't need a lock here UNLESS there are also deletes. If there are
// deletes, then a lock like the one below (in the else) is necessary
return _clients[fk_client];
else
{
ClientData client = new ClientData(fk_client);
lock (_clientsLock)
// Again, check again because another thread could have added this
// this ClientData between the last ContainsKey check and this add
if (!clients.ContainsKey(fk_client))
_clients.Add(fk_client, client);
return client;
}
}
Keep in mind that whenever you mess with static classes, you have the potential for thread synchronization problems. If there's a static class-level list of some kind (in this case, _clients, the Dictionary object), there's DEFINITELY going to be thread synchronization issues to deal with.
Your code really does assume only one thread is in the function at a time.
This just simply won't be true in ASP.NET
If you insist on doing it this way, use a static semaphore to lock the area around this class.
you need thread safe & minimize lock.
see Double-checked locking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking)
write simply with TryGetValue.
public static object lockClientsSingleton = new object();
public static ClientData GetClientData(Guid fk_client)
{
if (_clients == null) {
lock( lockClientsSingleton ) {
if( _clients==null ) {
_clients = new Dictionary``();
}
}
}
ClientData client;
if( !_clients.TryGetValue( fk_client, out client ) )
{
lock(_clients)
{
if( !_clients.TryGetValue( fk_client, out client ) )
{
client = new ClientData(fk_client)
_clients.Add( fk_client, client );
}
}
}
return client;
}