I'm new to web development so I'm not sure what's the best option for the problem that I'm having.
Basically I have a web application that calls a web service for processing some data.
This process may take a long time (hours) and I would to know if there is an easy way to send some status information to the client from time to time.
Right now, the client makes the request from the browser and it just waits there until it finishes.
How can I send some information from the web service? I would like to send a percentage and some additional text specifying what is being done.
Thanks
WCF services can be marked as [OneWay] so that they don't return a response.
or, you could have the service kick off the process in an async manner and then just return to the client that the process has/or hasn't kicked off.
Then, the client can poll another method as the other user has suggested.
If you process takes hours you definitely can't use a sync service because you'll hit your execution timeout or rather the connection timeout for the client.
Maybe you can poll another method for status?
If I were you, I would make the original request asynchronous, as in instead of waiting for the response, it just "starts" the task and returns immediately. Then I would have a separate method on your web service that the app can poll periodically to get the status of the job. once it completes, it can display the data like the original request was doing.
if you want to do it synchronously, you can turn off Response.Buffer and write directly to the response.
Related
I am calling a webservice to send sms to clients from my ASP.NET web app. Sometimes this webservice takes too much time to return a response, and this is causing problems with the next functions called in my app. So is there any way to add time out for the response from my app? In other words: can I add a time out so whenever the response time exceeds time out, my app continue working instead of waiting for a response?
How do you make the request ... HttpWebRequest? If this is the case you have a timeout property - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.httpwebrequest.timeout(v=vs.110).aspx
In case you don't care about the response, you can go with "Fire and forget" approach. You can find more information here - Simplest way to do a fire and forget method in C#?
I am working on prototyping a new web service for my company and we are considering Apache Camel as our integration framework. Here is a quick run-down of the high-level architecture:
-IBM Websphere MQ as the queuing solution
1) we receive http request
2) asynchronously persist this request
3a) do some processing on the request
3b) send to another tier for further processing
4) asynchronously update the request record in DB
5) respond to caller
What I want to do is:
When a http request comes in, put it on a queue to be processed and wait n seconds. If the web handler doesn't get a response in n seconds, reply to the caller with a custom message
Once the request is on the processing queue, a camel route is listening to this queue to process. When it pulls a message from queue, put a copy of the request on a different queue to be persisted asynchronously. Do some processing on the request. Then send it to another queue to be further processed and wait for a response. Then put it back on the persist queue to be asynchronously updated.
Then respond to web listener. Then web listener responds to web caller.
I am reading everything I can about Apache Camel and there is a lot of information about there. I might be on a little bit of information overload, and any help on the following concerns would be greatly appreciated:
1)
If the web listeners use an InOut exchange (with the first processing tier) without a replyTo queue defined, it will create a temporary queue for the response. What happens if this request times out? I understand I can set a requestTimeout on the exchange and, if it times out, catch that exception and set a custom message. But, will that temporary queue be killed? Or will they build up over time as requests time out?
2)
When it comes to scaling the processing tiers (adding more instances of those same routes on different machines), is it customary that if the instance that picks up the response (using a fixed reply to queue) is different than the instance that picked up the request, all the information about the original request is inside the message, so there is no need to share data across instances (unless of course there is data that is shared, like aggregrates and such)?
Any other tips and tricks when building a system like this would be very helpful.
Thanks!
I would say this solution is too complicated and there are too many areas which are hard both in terms of maintenance and also complexity. There is too much many steps mixing async and sync communication.
Why not simply the solution to the following steps:
Synchronously http request
Put message on MQ with reply to header
Message is picked up and sent to backend
If reply is not received within a given time transaction is terminated.
The reply to queue is removed
Requestor is notified.
I have web application with WCF service. That service contains method that implements message notification. The problem is that with big number of users it takes too much time and throws request timeout exception. What is the best way to solve this problem. Increasing time for request is not available, user won't wait more than minute. Maybe multi-threading or async invocation of notification method will help? Or is there better solution?
If your notification method is not essential for the request to be serviced effectively, then move it to another thread.
As an architectural point you may consider moving all notifications to their own service, the API of which can then be consumed asynchronously.
See here for how.
The problem is as follows:
An external server sends incoming SMS messages converted to HTTP requests into my sometimes very time-consuming .aspx page. If no response is returned to the external server in 20 seconds, this is considered as an timeout and the same message is sent to my aspx page again (and maybe again....)
The optimal solution for me would be that the aspx page reads the incoming message (as an HTTP request to the aspx page), starts the processing of the message in another thread, and immediately renders response back to the external server. The external server has no interest in other stuff than the HTTP status (normally 200). When the processing of the message is completed this results in an entry into the log file of the application.
The processing of the message is done by making another web request to an aspx page, and I have tried to use the BeginGetResponse method for the web request, and have created a handler for handling of the completed web request to the processing page. The problem is that the handler seems to not be called, most likely because the aspx page's lifecycle is ended before the asynchrounous web request is completed.
Has anyone any good solution for this problem? I have also looked at the async page model, but this also seems to not be a solution for me because the response should be returned to the external server before the processing of the message is completed.
Regards, Eivind
I'd be very wary of using threads in ASP.Net in this manner. Using them to take advantage of multiple cores is one thing. Using them to set up some kind of concurrent response technique seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially when there is a far more elegant solution.
Your ASP.Net application should merely take the message and toss it in a database and send the success reply. It's job is done. The job of delivering the message should be handled by some kind of service or daemon. Windows Services are kind of a pain to build and maintain so perhaps just a scheduled task that runs every 30 seconds or so checking for queued messages in the DB would suit your purposes just fine.
I've seen a lot of people try to use threads in ASP.Net when they really should just be creating a background service. The results are never as reliable as you would hope.
Async page model is definitely not the solution. Have you tried using the unload event to do EndRequest? I really don't know if that would work but it is worth a try. The most robust way is to use Windows Service to run the async request.
We have an application that hits a web service successfully, and the data returned updates our DB. What I'm trying to do is allow the user to continue using other parts of our web app while the web service processes their request and returns the necessary data.
Is this asynchronous processing? I've seen some console app samples on the msdn site, but considering this is a web form using a browser I'm not sure those samples apply. What if the user closes the browser window mid request? Currently we're using the Message Queue which "waits" for the web service to respond then handles the DB update, but we'd really like to get rid of that.
I'm (obviously) new to async requests and could use some help figuring this out. Does anyone have some code samples or pertinent articles I could check out?
Yes, what you're describing is async processing.
The best solution depends to some degree on the nature of the web services call and how you want to handle the results. A few tips that might help:
One approach is to send a request from the initial web request to a background thread. This works best if your users don't need to see the results of the call as soon as it completes.
Another approach is to have your server-side code make an async web services call. This is the way to go if your users do need to see the results. The advantage of an async call on the server side is that it doesn't tie up an ASP.NET worker thread waiting for results (which can seriously impair scalability)
Your server-side code can be structured either as a web page (*.aspx) or a WCF service, depending on what you want to have it return. Both forms support async.
From the client, you can use an async XMLHTTP request (Ajax). That way, you will receive a notification event when the call completes.
Another approach for long-running tasks is to write them to a persistent queue using Service Broker. This works best for things that you'd like users to be able to start and then walk away from and see the results later, with an assurance that the task will be completed.
In case it helps, I cover each of these techniques in detail in my book, along with code examples: Ultra-Fast ASP.NET.
If you're not blocking for a method return you're doing asychronous processing. Have a look at Dino Esposito's article on using AJAX for server task checking.
You can perform asynchronous web service calls using both Web Service Enhancements (WSE) and Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) in your C# code. WSE is discontinued, so its use is not recommended. Generically speaking, if you were to terminate program execution in the middle of an asynchronous call before the response returned, nothing bad would happen; the client would simply not process the result, but the web service would still be able to perform its processing to completion.
If your client web application is responsible for updating the DB, then without anything else in your client code, quitting in the middle of an asynchronous operation would mean that the DB was not updated. However, you could add some code to your client application that prevented the browser from quitting entirely while it is waiting for an asynchronous response while preventing new web service calls from being run after Close is called (using Javascript).
You have 2 distinct communications here: (1) from web browser to web application and (2) from web application to web service.
diagram http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/6713/diagramo.png
There is no point of making (2) asynchronous: you still would have to wait for web service to finish processing request. If you end HTTP request from browser to web application the client would have no clue what the result of request was.
It is much better to make asynchronous request from web browser to your web application. Ajax is ideal for that. In fact, that's what it was created for. Here's couple of links to get you started:
jQuery Ajax
ASP.NET AJAX