I know there is a very similar question here but I was hoping to get a better explination. Why would I ever use HttpContext.Cache instead of HttpRuntime.Cache if the HttpContext really uses the HttpRuntime.Cache behind the scenes?
In the article Simulate a Windows Service using ASP.NET to run scheduled jobs Omar uses the HttpContext to store his cache items, but when Jeff Atwood Implemented it here he chose to use the HttpRuntime instead. Obviously in this particular situation it makes sense since since you don't have to do a web request to add the cache item back into the HttpContext.
However I'm looking for some good pointers as to when to use one versus the other.
It really is the same cache at the end, only HttpContext.Current can sometimes be null (when not in a web context, or in a web context but not yet constructed). You'd be safe to always use HttpRuntime.Cache.
When you are in a regular web page, you can safely use HttpContext.Cache or just the Cache property of the page.
If you are doing something that's not in a page, you often need to use HttpRuntime.Cache to safely get access to it.
In some cases you can know if there is an http context or not, for example if you start a separate thread from a web page, that thread does not have http context. In other cases you may have an http context sometimes, like in the Application_Start method in global.asax, as the application may not always be started because there is a request.
I find it misleading too although we all know it just returns HttpRuntime.Cache internally. Also the HttpRuntime is kind of a bad choice to expose the Cache I guess.
Everyone sais how Session is session-level cache and the Cache we're talking about is application-level. I would prefer to have Application.Cache as the cache we're using today and HttpContext.Cache to refer to what's known as HttpContext.Items.
As for answering your question, I think we should all stick to the HttpRuntime.Cache making our code clearer even if we do have various ways to access it. And when you seriously plan to use it you'd better wrap your own API and have that internally call the HttpRuntime's or any other cache implementation (EntLib, Velocity, etc...).
Related
ASP.NET is known to exhibit what is called "thread agility". In short, it means that multiple threads may be employed to fulfill a single request, although not more than one thread at a time. This is an optimization that means a thread waiting for asynchronous I/O may be returned to the pool and used to service other requests.
However, ASP.NET does not migrate all thread-related data when moving a request. Microsoft either forgot to do so, or thought that using thread-local storage (made easy by the ThreadStatic attribute) was something only the people coding ASP.NET themselves should do.
Based on quick googling, it seems to me that the only way to avoid the issue is to rely on HttpContext instead. The context is indeed migrated if ASP.NET decides to switch threads mid-request, so this overcomes the problem. But it creates a brand new headache instead: It ties your application logic to HttpContext, and therefore to a web context. That's not acceptable in all situations (in fact, I'd say it's unacceptable in most). Besides, since HttpContext is sealed and has internal constructors, you cannot mock or stub it, and therefore your logic also becomes untestable.
According to this (old) blog post, CallContext does NOT work, which is pretty infuriating given that a call context is conceptually precisely a logical thread!
Is there a simple way to reliably implement "per-LOGICAL-thread" isolation that will work in asp.net contexts as well as other contexts?
If not, does anyone know of a lightweight third-party framework that solves the problem? Does StructureMap behave correctly when ASP.NET migrates threads?
I would like a general answer, but in case anyone wonders, the specific use case I'm looking at is for use of Entity Framework in a SharePoint context. We're unfortunately stuck with SP-2010 and EF 3.5 for a while. EF basically requires that data is saved using the same context as they were originally read from - or else you have to keep track of changes yourself. I would like to introduce a "current model" concept. The first time the model is called upon in processing each HTTP request it should be instantiated, and then that same model instance should be used for the duration of the request. But the code relying on "Model.Current" should also work if executed in the context of a timer job. I'm fine with the timer job code explicitly disposing of the model when done with it (a task I'd like to give to a handler for HttpApplication.EndRequest in the SharePoint web context).
There may be reasons not to do this, and that's interesting too, but I would anyway really appreciate to learn of a way to achieve "logical thread isolation" in an asp.net context, as it'd be remarkably useful.
There is a nice post related to the problem: Implicit Async Context ("AsyncLocal").
If I got everything right, Logical CallContext i.e. CallContext.LogicalGetData and CallContext.LogicalSetData make it real to migrate immutable data correctly given you live in the world past .NET 4.5. This immutable limitation is a nut but still...way to go.
I understand that in order for a ASP.Net handler to support session state you need to implement both IHttpHandler and IRequireSessionState, but why isn't session state provided by default? If for performance reasons, then wouldn't it be better to have an interface like IDoesNotRequireSessionState?
Its because the session is block the asynchronous operations, and the handle is usually used for long time operations, like the making and download of a file - if you keep the session on long time operation you block the rest of your pages.
Also the handle is made with the idea of the minimum required to get a response.
About the session lock:
Web app blocked while processing another web app on sharing same session
jQuery Ajax calls to web service seem to be synchronous
ASP.NET Server does not process pages asynchronously
Replacing ASP.Net's session entirely
If for performance reasons, then wouldn't it be better to have an
interface like IDoesNotRequireSessionState?
Absolutely not, because then everybody implementing a handler must know about the existence of this interface. An HTTP handler is the fastest in terms of performance you might ever get from ASP.NET. So if you want to pollute it with crap like session then you'd better do it explicitly, and taking full responsibility of doing so, by implementing some interface that you should know about.
As per title. I want to be able to save some data in a cache object but this object must be available to all users/sessions and can expire.
What is the best method to achieve this in a asp.net web app?
HttpContext.Current is available to all pages, but not necessarily to all threads. If you try to use it inside a background thread, ThreadPool delegate, async call (using an ASP.NET Async page), etc., you'll end up with a NullReferenceException.
If you need to get access to the cache from library classes, i.e. classes that don't have knowledge of the current request, you should use HttpRuntime.Cache instead. This is more reliable because it doesn't depend on an HttpContext.
HttpContext.Current.Cache will be present, but Current should only be used if you cant get to your context member.
Also to answer your second question, yes, the Cache object is global to the application.
Here's a good intro to caching...
How to cache in ASP.NET by using Visual C# .NET
and...
Caching with ASP.NET . Don't skip part 2, "Data Caching"
I need to have some object hanging around between two events I'm interested in: PreRequestHandlerExecute (where I create an instance of my object and want to save it) and PostRequestHandlerExecute (where I want to get to the object). After the second event the object is not needed for my purposes and should be discarded either by storage or my explicit action. So the ideal context where my object should be stored is per request (with guaranteed no sharing issues when different threads are serving requests... or processes/servers :) )
Take into account that actual implementation I can do is being made from a HttpModule and is supposed to be a pluggable solution for already written web apps (so the option to provide some state using static/instance variables in Global.asax doesn't look good - I will have to modify Global.asax on every web application).
Cache seems to be too broad for this use. I tried to see whether httpContext.Application (of type HttpApplicationState) is good for me or not, but cannot get whether it is exactly per HttpApplication instance or not (AFAIK you can have several instances of HttpApplications used on different threads and therefore serving several requests simultaneously - then using storage shared between threads will not work correctly; otherwise I would use it because one HttpApplication instance serves exactly one request at a time). Something could be done with storing state on the HttpModule instances if I know for sure that it's exactly bound 1-to-1 with every HttpApplication instance running (but again I need a proof that HttpApplication instance is 1-to-1 with my HttpModule's instance). Any valuable and reputable links on these topics are much appreciated...
Would be great to find something particularly well-suited for per request situation (because otherwise I may end up with something ulgy... probably either some 'broader' scoped storage and some hacks to have different keys in the storage for different requests, OR using a thread-local thing and in this way commit to the theory that IIS/ASP.NET will not ever serve first event from one thread and the second event from the other thread and so on)
try HttpContext.Current.Items collection. It is per Request.
as Fahad had mentioned, HttpContext.Current.Items is the way to go. Be aware that it is per-request and if there are multiple threads serving the request (which sometimes happens - different modules are served by different thread) HttpContext.Current.Items is still shared between them. Some info which you might find helpful
I'm trying to cache some information that I've retrieved from a database. I've decided to use a static List<> member to store the information. I know from my experience with List<> in multithreaded applications that I need to protect access to it with the lock statement. Do I treat any code in my Asp.Net code the exact same way? Will the lock statement still work?
A lock statement around List method's would definitely work but if you need caching functionality in your ASP.NET application I would recommend you using Cache class which is adapted to this functionality.
Lock will work. Be aware that if there are multiple worker processes, you will end up with multiple versions of the list. Each of them will be protected by its own lock.
A pretty real danger here is that if you fail to release the lock, your entire web application might hang. A user might get disconnected while your ASP.NET page is executing; so be careful of exceptions thrown at unexpected times.
It depends upon whether you're going to modify the List. Here's a good discussion of this subject: Do i need a lock on a list? C#