I am constructing a web service that receives data and updates it periodically. When a user pings the service, it will send specific data back to the user. In order to receive this data, I have a persistent that is created on startup and regularly receives updates, but not at periodic intervals. I have already implemented it, but I would like to add DI and make it into a service. Can this type of problem be solved with a BackgroundService or is this not recommended? Is there anything better I should use? I originally wanted to just register my connection object as a singleton, but since singletons are not initialized on startup, that does not work so well for me.
I thought I would add an answer as so expand on my comment. From what you have described, creating a BackgroundService is likely the best solution for what you want to do.
ASP.NET Core provides an IHostedService interface that can be used to implement a background task or service, in your web app. They also provide a BackgroundService class that implements IHostedService and provides a base class for implementing long running background services. These background services are registered within the CreateWebHostBuilder method in Program.cs.
You can consume services from the dependency injection container but you will have to properly manage their scopes when using them. You can decide how to manage your BackgroundService classes in order to fit your needs. It does take an understanding of how to work with Task objects and executing, queueing, monitoring them etc. So I'd recommend giving the docs a thorough read, so you don't end up impacting performance or resource usage.
I also tend to use Autofac as my DI container rather than the built in Microsoft container, since Autofac provides more features for resolving services and managing scopes. So it's worth considering if you find yourself hitting a wall because of the built in container.
Here's the link to the docs section covering this in much more depth. I believe you can also create standalone service workers now, so that might be worth a look depending on use case.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/host/hosted-services?view=aspnetcore-3.1&tabs=visual-studio
Edit: Here's another link to a guide an example implementation for a microservice background service. It goes a little more in depth on some of the specifics.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/microservices/multi-container-microservice-net-applications/background-tasks-with-ihostedservice#implementing-ihostedservice-with-a-custom-hosted-service-class-deriving-from-the-backgroundservice-base-class
Related
I have a service which should begin when the server starts, and continue running for the entirety of the server lifetime. I would like to be able to manage the service (querying, modifying runtime options, etc) with a web frontend. While researching the best way to accomplish this, I came across two options: a scoped service with a singleton lifetime, and a backgroundservice/IHostedService. What are the differences between the two options, and when should one be used over the other?
Neither of those is actually a thing. The closest is the concept of a singleton and hosted services. A hosted service is a class that implements IHostedService and pretty much fits the bill of what you're looking for in that it will start at app startup and stop at app shutdown. ASP.NET Core 3.0 added a BackgroundService class, which is just an implementation of IHostedService with a lot of the cruft of defining what happens as start/stop/etc. covered. In practice, it usually makes more sense to inherit from BackgroundService, but you can also just implement IHostedService directly yourself.
"Singleton" is just a lifetime. All hosted services are registered with a singleton lifetime, but just because something is a singleton, doesn't mean it does anything special. You could, for example, register some random class as a singleton, and whenever it is injected, you'll always get the same instance. However, it will not do anything at startup or shutdown on its own.
Long and short, there are no differing options here. You're looking for a hosted service. That said, it only solves part of what you're looking for, in that it will "run" while the app is running. However, you can't really connect to it, or interact with it directly. It's not like a Web Api or something; it isn't exposed for HTTP requests, for example.
To "manage" it, you would have to expose some sort of API that would then interact with the service through code. For example, the docs provide an example of a queued background service that processes things added to the queue. However, to queue something, you would need to do something like create an API endpoint, inject the queue, and then use code to add a new item to the queue. Then, the actual hosted service would eventually pop that task from the queue and work on it.
My team maintains a very large .Net Core 2.1 web site. Lots of controllers, lots of services that get injected into the controllers via constructor injection.
Sometimes due to developer error a service class is no longer added to the DI container during startup. Obviously this leads to an exception when MVC tries to construct a controller that relies on that service (in response to an incoming request).
Problem is that this may affect only some lightly used controller, so our (far from perfect) regression testing doesn't pick up the regression bug. But it is still bound to be picked up by one of our (very demanding) customers.
I though of writing a unit test that would
Instantiate a ServiceCollection class (that implements IServiceCollection);
Call our own method that adds all services to that service collection (the same method used during normal startup);
Find all controllers through reflection, and try to construct them the same way MVC does - by getting dependent services from the DI container.
So my question is:
Does this approach make sense?
Is there an example somewhere that I could use?
Failing an example, how would I achieve 1) and 3) ?
I'm creating a new application in Zend Framework 3 and i have a question about a design pattern
Without entering in much details this application will have several Services, as in, will be connecting to external APIs and even in multiple databases, the workflow is also very complex, a single will action can have multiple flows depending on several external information (wich user logged in, configs, etc).
I know about dependency injections and Zend Framework 3 Service Manager, however i am worried about instanciating sereval services when the flow will actually use only a few of them in certain cases, also we will have services depending on other services aswell, for this, i was thinking about using singletons.
Is singleton really a solution here? I was looking a way to user singletons in Zend Framework 3 and haven't figured out a easy way since i can't find a way to user the Service Manager inside a service, as I can't retrive the instance of the Service Manager outside of the Factory system.
What is an easy way to implement singletons in Zend Framework 3?
Why use singletons?
You don't need to worry about too many services in your service manager since they are started only when you get them from the service manager.
Also don't use the service manager inside another class except a factory. In ZF3 it's removed from the controllers for a reason. One of them is testability. If all services are inject with a factory, you can easily write tests. Also if you read your code next year, you can easily see what dependencies are needed inside a class.
If you find there are too many services being injected inside a class which are not always needed you can:
Use the ProxyManager. This lazy loads a service but doesn't start it until a method is called.
Split the service: Move some parts from a service into a new service. e.g. You don't need to place everything in an UserService. You can also have an UserRegisterService, UserEmailService, UserAuthService and UserNotificationsService.
In stead of ZF3, you can also think about zend-expressive. Without getting into too much detail, it is a lightweight middleware framework. You can use middleware to detect what is needed for a request and route to the required action to process the request. Something like this can probably also done in ZF3 but maybe someone else can explain how to do it there.
I have some code that gets run a lot (for every webservice request).
The code is called from within a web service which is hosted by an application server (Websphere 7).
I noticed Websphere uses a lot of classes that presumably are singleton objects (such as BOXMLSerializer (for de/serializing business objects) or BOFactory.
I want to save on the cost of creating a new object for every web service request for example.
Is creating a singleton that lives for the duration of the uptime of the app server is the best way of dealing with this?
Does Websphere provides any help with these sorts of things?
erloewe is correct, an ordinary singleton could work. Regarding the Singleton Session Bean though -- it's part of the J2EE6 spec and is not available in WAS7 (since it is only J2EE5). It will be part of WAS8 though.
Yes, you could make an ordinary singleton. However due the way the classloader works it might not be exactly same for your applications if you had several applications requiring similar service. For that reason you probably should create a Singleton Session Bean.
I would like to create an Entity Framework 4.0 context when a call is received and invoke to save changes when it finish, (something like JPA).
I think it is a good idea because I can use the state for all the call, It is short and encapsulate enogh to be threadsafe and long enough for caching calls and the context itself.
Any idea how is the best way for implement this?
Yes, definitely, that's the best way to go.
By default and by best practice recommendation, WCF service calls are "per-call", e.g. each requests gets a brand new, dedicated instance of the service class all to itself - no messy multithreaded/concurrency stuff to deal with - just a nice clean execution environment.
With EF 4, the "disconnected" scenario of sending back entities through WCF was one of the (many) areas that the EF team focused on. See some of these resources for more information:
Building N-Tier apps with EF4
More on disconnected Entity Framework
Attaching modified entities in EF4