I have a service that collects data and has to survive the app's life-cycle changes while app is in the background. This service resides in the same process as my app, i.e. registered in the manifest as well.
The service posts LiveData to the app, and the main app retrieves this LiveData by binding to the service and doing something like:
private void onServiceConnected(TicketValidatorService service) {
...
service.getStatus().observe(this, new Observer<SomeStatus>() {
#Override
public void onChanged(SomeStatus status) {
handleStatusChanged(status);
}
})
...
}
Is this considered bad practice? Or should I rather communicate via Messenger/Handler or LocalBroadcastManager stuff over the service/app boundary? It would be difficult to put the service in another process, but I don't think I have to do that for the sake of my task.
Communication to a local service directly is not considered to be a bad practice and in fact an official recommendation. There is no reason to complicate your code to support cross-process communication when you are not going to use it. Moreover this kind of communication involves marshaling / unmarshaling which adds restrictions on data types you can pass through and has some performance hit.
Also please note, starting from android 8 there are limitations on background services. So if you are not running your service as a foreground service it's not going to be alive for long time after your app goes to background.
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.
I am in the process of migrating NServiceBus up to v6 and am at a roadblock in the process of removing reference to IBus.
We build upon a common library for many of our applications (Website, Micro Services etc) and this library has the concept of IEventPublisher which is essentially a Send and Publish interface. This library has no knowledge of NSB.
We can then supply the implementation of this IEventPublisher using DI from the application, this allows the library's message passing to be replaced with another technology very easily.
So what we end up with is an implementation similar to
public class NsbEventPublisher : IEventPublisher
{
IEndpointInstance _instance;
public NsbEventPublisher(IEndpointInstance endpoint)
{
instance = endpoint;
}
public void Send(object message)
{
instance.Send(message, sendOptions);
}
public void Publish(object message)
{
instance.Publish(message, sendOptions);
}
}
This is a simplification of what actually happens but illustrates my problem.
Now when the DI container is asked for an IEventPublisher it knows to return a NsbEventPublisher and it knows to resolve the IEndpointInstance as we bind this in the bootstrapper for the website to the container as a singleton.
All is fine and my site runs perfect.
I am now migrating the micro-services (running in NSB.Host) and the DI container is refusing to resolve IEndpointInstance when resolving the dependencies within a message handler. Reading the docs this is intentional and I should be using IMessageHandlerContext when in a message handler.
https://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/upgrades/5to6/moving-away-from-ibus
The docs even elude to the issue I have in the bottom example around the class MyContextAccessingDependency. The suggestion is to pass the message context through the method which puts a hard dependency on the code running in the context of a message handler.
What I would like to do is have access to a sender/publisher and the DI container can give me the correct implementation. The code does not need any concept of the caller and if it was called from a message handler or from a self hosted application that just wants to publish.
I see that there is two interfaces for communicating with the "Bus" IPipelineContext and IMessageSession which IMessageHandlerContext and IEndpointInstance interfaces extend respectively.
What I am wondering is there some unification of the two interfaces that gets bound by NSB into the container so I can accept an interface that sends/publishes messages. In a handler it is an IMessageHandlerContext and on my self hosted application the IEndPointInstance.
For now I am looking to change my implementation of IEventPublisher depending on application hosting. I was just hoping there might be some discussion about how this approach is modeled without a reliable interface to send/publish irrespective of what initiated the execution of the code path.
A few things to note before I get to the code:
The abstraction over abstraction promise, never works. I have never seen the argument of "I'm going to abstract ESB/Messaging/Database/ORM so that I can swap it in future" work. ever.
When you abstract message sending functionality like that, you'll lose some of the features the library provides. In this case, you can't perform 'Conversations' or use 'Sagas' which would hinder your overall experience, e.g. when using monitoring tools and watching diagrams in ServiceInsight, you won't see the whole picture but only nugets of messages passing through the system.
Now in order to make that work, you need to register IEndpointInstance in your container when your endpoint starts up. Then that interface can be used in your dependency injection e.g. in NsbEventPublisher to send the messages.
Something like this (depending which IoC container you're using, here I assume Autofac):
static async Task AsyncMain()
{
IEndpointInstance endpoint = null;
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.Register(x => endpoint)
.As<IEndpointInstance>()
.SingleInstance();
//Endpoint configuration goes here...
endpoint = await Endpoint.Start(busConfiguration)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
The issues with using IEndpointInstance / IMessageSession are mentioned here.
I (new to WCF) am writing a WCF service that acquires and analyzes an X-ray spectrum - i.e. it is a long-running process, sometimes several minutes. Naturally, this begs for asynchronous calls so, using wsDualHttpBinding and defining the following in my ServiceContract
[ServiceContract(Namespace="--removed--",
SessionMode=SessionMode.Required, CallbackContract=typeof(IAnalysisSubscriber))]
public interface IAnalysisController
{
// Simplified - removed other declarations for clarity
[OperationContract]
Task<Measurement> StartMeasurement(MeasurementRequest request);
}
And the (simplified) implementation has
async public Task<Measurement> StartMeasurement(MeasurementRequest request)
{
m_meas = m_config.GetMeasurement(request);
Spectrum sp = await m_mca.Acquire(m_meas.AcquisitionTime, null);
UpdateSpectrum(m_meas, sp);
return m_meas;
}
private void McaProgress(Spectrum sp)
{
m_client.ReportProgress(sp);
}
Where m_client is the callback object obtained from m_client = OperationContext.Current.GetCallbackChannel(); in the "Connect" method - called when the WCF client first connects. This works as long as I don't use progress reporting, but as soon as I add progress reporting by changing the "null" in the m_mca.Acquire() method to "new Progress(McaProgress)", on the first progress report, the client generates an error "The server did not provide a meaningful reply; this might be caused by a contract mismatch..."
I understand the client is probably awaiting a particular reply of a Task rather than having a callback made into it, but how do I implement this type of progress reporting with WCF? I would like the client to be able to see the live spectrum as it is generated and get an estimate of the time remaining to complete the spectrum acquisition. Any help or pointers to where someone has implemented this type of progress reporting with WCF is much appreciated (I've been searching but find mostly references to EAP or APM and WCF and not much related to TAP).
Thanks, Dave
Progress<T> wasn't really meant for use in WCF. It was designed for UI apps, and may behave oddly depending on your host (e.g., ASP.NET vs self-hosted).
I would recommend writing a simple IProgress<T> implementation that just called IAnalysisSubscriber.ReportProgress directly. Also make sure that IAnalysisSubscriber.ReportProgress has OperationContract.IsOneWay set to true.
My company has a product that will I feel can benefit from a web service API. We are using MSMQ to route messages back and forth through the backend system. Currently we are building an ASP.Net application that communicates with a web service (WCF) that, in turn, talks to MSMQ for us. Later on down the road, we may have other client applications (not necessarily written in .Net). The message going into MSMQ is an object that has a property made up of an array of strings. There is also a property that contains the command (a string) that will be routed through the system. Personally, I am not a huge fan of this, but I was told it is for scalability and every system can use strings.
My thought, regarding the web services was to model some objects based on our data that can be passed into and out of the web services so they are easily consumed by the client. Initially, I was passing the message object, mentioned above, with the array of strings in it. I was finding that I was creating objects on the client to represent that data, making the client responsible for creating those objects. I feel the web service layer should really be handling this. That is how I have always worked with services. I did this so it was easier for me to move data around the client.
It was recommended to our group we should maintain the “single entry point” into the system by offering an object that contains commands and have one web service to take care of everything. So, the web service would have one method in it, Let’s call it MakeRequest and it would return an object (either serialized XML or JSON). The suggestion was to have a base object that may contain some sort of list of commands that other objects can inherit from. Any other object may have its own command structure, but still inherit base commands. What is passed back from the service is not clear right now, but it could be that “message object” with an object attached to it representing the data. I don’t know.
My recommendation was to model our objects after our actual data and create services for the types of data we are working with. We would create a base service interface that would house any common methods used for all services. So for example, GetById, GetByName, GetAll, Save, etc. Anything specific to a given service would be implemented for that specific implementation. So a User service may have a method GetUserByUsernameAndPassword, but since it implements the base interface it would also contain the “base” methods. We would have several methods in a service that would return the type of object expected, based on the service being called. We could house everything in one service, but I still would like to get something back that is more usable. I feel this approach leaves the client out of making decisions about what commands to be passed. When I connect to a User service and call the method GetById(int id) I would expect to get back a User object.
I had the luxury of working with MS when I started developing WCF services. So, I have a good foundation and understanding of the technology, but I am not the one designing it this time.
So, I am not opposed to the “single entry point” idea, but any thoughts about why either approach is more scalable than the other would be appreciated. I have never worked with such a systematic approach to a service layer before. Maybe I need to get over that?
I think there are merits to both approaches.
Typically, if you are writing an API that is going to be consumed by a completely separate group of developers (perhaps in another company), then you want the API to be as self-explanative and discoverable as possible. Having specific web service methods that return specific objects is much easier to work with from the consumer's perspective.
However, many companies use web services as one of many layers to their applications. In this case, it may reduce maintenance to have a generic API. I've seen some clever mechanisms that require no changes whatsoever to the service in order to add another column to a table that is returned from the database.
My personal preference is for the specific API. I think that the specific methods are much easier to work with - and are largely self-documenting. The specific operation needs to be executed at some point, so why not expose it for what it is? You'd get laughed at if you wrote:
public void MyApiMethod(string operationToPerform, params object[] args)
{
switch(operationToPerform)
{
case "InsertCustomer":
InsertCustomer(args);
break;
case "UpdateCustomer":
UpdateCustomer(args);
break;
...
case "Juggle5BallsAtOnce":
Juggle5BallsAtOnce(args);
break;
}
}
So why do that with a Web Service? It'd be much better to have:
public void InsertCustomer(Customer customer)
{
...
}
public void UpdateCustomer(Customer customer)
{
...
}
...
public void Juggle5BallsAtOnce(bool useApplesAndEatThemConcurrently)
{
...
}
I have a WPF appliction that uses WCF services to make calls to the server.
I use this property in my code to access the service
private static IProjectWcfService ProjectService
{
get
{
_projectServiceFactory = new ProjectWcfServiceFactory();
return _projectServiceFactory.Create();
}
}
The Create on the factory looks like this
public IProjectWcfService Create()
{
_serviceClient = new ProjectWcfServiceClient();
//ToDo: Need some way of saving username and password
_serviceClient.ClientCredentials.UserName.UserName = "MyUsername";
_serviceClient.ClientCredentials.UserName.Password = "MyPassword";
return _serviceClient;
}
To access the service methods I use somethingn like the following.
ProjectService.Save(dto);
Is this a good approach for what I am trying to do? I am getting an errorthat I can't track down that I think may be realted to having too many service client connections open (is this possible?) notice I never close the service client or reuse it.
What would the best practice for WCF service client's be for WPF calling?
Thanks in advance...
You're on the right track, I'd say ;-)
Basically, creating the WCF client proxy is a two-step process:
create the channel factory
from the channel factory, create the actual channel
Step #1 is quite "expensive" in terms of time and effort needed - so it's definitely a good idea to do that once and then cache the instance of ProjectWcfServiceFactory somewhere in your code.
Step #2 is actually pretty lightweight, and since a channel between a client and a service can fall into a "faulted state" when an exception happens on the server (and then needs to be re-created from scratch), caching the actual channel per se is less desirable.
So the commonly accepted best practice would be:
create the ChannelFactory<T> (in your case: ProjectWcfServiceFactory) once and cache it for as long as possible; do that heavy lifting only once
create the actual Channel (here: IProjectWcfService) as needed, before every call. That way, you don't have to worry about checking its state and recreating it as needed
UPDATE: "what about closing the channel?" asks Burt ;-) Good point!!
The acccepted best practice for this is to wrap your service call in a try....catch....finally block. The tricky part is: upon disposing of the channel, things can do wrong, too, so you could get an exception - that's why wrapping it in a using(....) block isn't sufficient.
So basically you have:
IProjectWcfService client = ChannelFactory.CreateChannel();
try
{
client.MakeYourCall();
}
catch(CommunicationException ce)
{
// do any exception handling of your own
}
finally
{
ICommunicationObject comObj = ((ICommunicationObject)client);
if(comObj.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
comObj.Abort();
}
else
{
comObj.Close();
}
}
And of course, you could definitely nicely wrap this into a method or an extension method or something in order not to have to type this out every time you make a service call.
UPDATE:
The book I always recommend to get up and running in WCF quickly is Learning WCF by Michele Leroux Bustamante. She covers all the necessary topics, and in a very understandable and approachable way. This will teach you everything - basics, intermediate topics, security, transaction control and so forth - that you need to know to write high quality, useful WCF services.
Learning WCF http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wYa%2BNiPML._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg
The more advanced topics and more in-depth look at WCF will be covered by Programming WCF Services by Juval Lowy. He really dives into all technical details and topics and presents "the bible" for WCF programming.