I have two Biztalk applications, each of which expose a webservice port,
I'm consuming them in an ASP.NET client using the 'Add service reference' tool from within the VS2010 GUI to generate the proxies.
But the proxy interface is slightly different in both. One takes two parameters, returns the 'response' via a parameter using the out keyword and has a void return type,
the other takes one parameter and returns the response using a typed return value.
I'm confused as to what is causing the difference in behavior, is something I'm doing as part of the creation of the references (as far as I can tell I've used the same process) or is it something about the server/WSDL I'm consuming?
EDIT -As per Grahams comment the type of proxy interface generated seems to depend on whether there is a namespace or not. I'll give the answer to whoever can put together the clearest description of what exactly is happening there.
As noted in the comments, the inclusing of a namespace in one of the services is what was triggering the difference in the proxy code generation. It's still not clear exactly why this is the case however.
Related
so i want to create some service that accesses external API, and i want to cache common requests from the API inside of that service, it depends on 3 other services, but i want to give it its own instance of cache, MemoryDistributedCache might later be changed for something else
services.AddSingleton<ISomeApi, SomeApi>(provider => new SomeApi(
Configuration.Get<Options>(),
new MemoryDistributedCache(new MemoryCache(new MemoryCacheOptions())),
provider.GetService<ILogger<SomeApi>>()
));
now from my Controllers i can access the api via DI, it works nicely but im not sure if its some sort of an anti-pattern or if there are better ways of doing it
i mean the real problem is separating the internal cache, requesting
IDistributedMemory from one service would give me the same object as if i request it from another service, they must be separated
This sounds like something you could use a proxy or decorator pattern for. The basic problem is that you have a service that does some data access, and another service responsible for caching the results of the first service. I realize you're not using a repository per se, but nonetheless the CachedRepository pattern should work for your needs. See here:
http://ardalis.com/introducing-the-cachedrepository-pattern
and
http://ardalis.com/building-a-cachedrepository-via-strategy-pattern
You can write your cached implementation such that it takes in the actual SomeApi type in its constructor if you don't need that part of the design to be flexible.
I'm very new to Application Insights, and I'm thinking of using it for a set of services I plan on implementing with asp.net webapi. I was able to get the basic telemetry up and running very easily (right-clicking on a project on VS, Add Application Insights), but then I hit a block. I plan to have a correlation id set in the request headers for calls to downstream services, and I would like to tag all the telemetry related to one outside call with the same correlation id.
So far I've found that there is a way to configure a TelemetryInitializer, but if I understood correctly, this is run before I get to access the request, meaning I can't check if there is a correlation id that I should attach.
So I guess there might be 2 ways to solve this: 1) if I can somehow actually get access to the request headers before the initializer, that would obviously solver the problem, or 2) somehow get a hold of the TelemetryClient instance that is used to report the automatically generated telemetry.
Perhaps the last resort would be to turn off all of the automatic stuff and do all of it manually, when I could of course control what properties are set on the TelemetryClient. But this would be quite a lot more work, so I'd prefer to find some other solution.
You were rights saying that you should use TelemetryInitializer. All TelemetryInitializers are called when Track method is called on any telemetry item. Autogenerated request telemetry is "tracked" on request OnEnd, you should have all your custom headers available for you at that time.
Please also have a look at OperationId - this is part of the standard context managed by App Inisghts and is used exactly for the purpose of correlating requests with downstream execution. This is created and passed automatically, including traces (if you use trackTrace).
Moreover, we have built-in support in our UX for easily seeing all telemetry for a particular operation - it can be found in "Search->Details-->Related Items-->All telemetry for this operation"
Trying to fix a problem in a classic ASP application, however I am inexperienced. Tried to find more info but was unable to.
The app instantiates a COM object for data retrieval which is not thread-safe, so the following instructions are added.
comObject=CreateObject("comServer.comObject")
returnValue=comObject.DoWork(.......)
...
comObject = Nothing
However, when processing two different http requests at the same time, the latter one seems to overwrite the first request, giving the first requester an error. It looks as if the comObject variable is shared between the requests.
How to instantiate the object in such a way that every separate request in IIS, gets it's own instance of the comObject?
Without knowing what the object does or how it does it, it's impossible to give specific advice. A general description will have to do:
The object is broken/buggy. It is the object's responsibility to handle the problem.
A COM object is supposed to handle all threading issues internally, or defer to COM STA apartments if it cannot do it, or doesn't want to (for those aspects that an STA can handle). This goes deep into the design of the object.
Regardless of COM Apartment choice, a DoWork(...) method with a semantic that precludes multiple separate COM objects in separate threads from handling simultaneous calls - is a seriously problematic design at best. A proper design would either include mechanisms to handle the conflict explicitly, or just hide the conflict from the calling code and handle the conflict internally.
Depending on the details of what DoWork() does, there might be ways to fix the object in such a way that the calls can succeed in parallel, or block each other so the calls are effectively serialized, or to cause the second call to throw a "You already called me" error. Again, which approach is more appropriate depends heavily on what the method does.
If you can't modify this broken component, your best option would be to write a COM wrapper that ensures serialization to the real object.
In any case, there is nothing reasonable you can do from the client (ASP VBScript) side.
We are mixing workflows, a workflow using receive activity's more at the end. But at the start we want to pass in some arguments (not using a receive activity!)
Our workflows are already being created and resumed using a dynamic endpoint with IWorkflowCreation and a class derived from WorkflowHostingEndpoint. In the OnGetCreationContext the creationgContext is filled with WorkflowArguments and the workflow runs. At a later part the receive activity's are creating a bookmark which can be resumed with a message. All seems nice.
But in a xamlx there are no WorkflowArguments, i understand why, except that i want them anyway. I though about an activity in which i can write some code to get the Arguments myself, but i do need some help here.
Or is there another way to pass along the WorkflowArguments into a xamls without using Messaging?
You can't pass arguments into a starting workflow service except through the SOAP message that starts it. But there is nothing preventing you from reading any properties in your workflow service. So it is perfectly fine to do read settings or something similar instead of passing them in at startup.
We have solved this exact situation by creating another WCF service which sits alongside our xamlx service on a slightly different url (e.g. /WorkflowMetadata) and this is where we implement a service method that returns a dictionary of string, type.
In the implementation of this service we simply read the xamlx and determine the arguments.
This is what we use to interrogate a target workflow in an activity designer when creating something like a launch-workflow activity.
Creating an activity will not work as that activity will need an instance in order to run. All you want is some metadata about the xamlx service. And if you are using a WorkflowCreationEndpoint to construct a creation context then you are probably only allowing a dictionary of string, object as the start parameters. Therefore standard metadata will not work. This left us with the only option being to provide another service beside the workflow which serves metadata.
Background here: http://blog.petegoo.com/index.php/2011/09/02/building-an-enterprise-workflow-system-with-wf4/
Say i'm having a web service that accepts two arguments and that is being called/consume in my application. Now after some time, the web service changes and accepts three arguments, hence in my application, would that be throwing an error, or i need to just update the web reference, or i need to recreate a web serivce or would that be working fine?
Let me know if any doubts
Thanks!
You could add optional parameters where if a parameter value isn't given to the method a default value is used.
From a "pure" architectural aspect, you should never change the signature of a method of a service once it's in use. You should version by creating a new method with a different namespace. But staying pure is sometimes difficult to do.
In your case you need to update the Web reference in the client application and then modify the code to pass in the appropriate parameter to the method in the service proxy.