I have an advice which calls a similar method in the advice. How do we make sure the advice gets called once and only once. Right now as the method I am calling within advice is the same as the one being instrumented, it goes into recursive calling and results in java.lang.StackOverflowError.
transform(
new AgentBuilder.Transformer.ForAdvice()
.include(JettyHandlerAdvice.class.getClassLoader())
.advice(named("addFilterWithMapping").and(ElementMatchers.takesArgument(0,named("org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.FilterHolder"))),JettyHandlerAdvice.class.getName())
)
Advice
#Advice.OnMethodEnter
private static void before(#Advice.AllArguments Object[] args, #Advice.Origin("#m") String methodName, #Advice.This Object thiz) {
FilterHolder filterHolder = ((org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler)thiz).addFilterWithMapping(XYZFilter.class, "/*", EnumSet.of(javax.servlet.DispatcherType.REQUEST));
}
Byte Buddy is a code generation framework and is not aspect-oriented. Think of the code being copy-pasted to the target location; the stack overflow error you are seing would be the same if you hardcoded the instrumentation into your target method.
This can be avoided by adding a flag, for example, you could define a ThreadLocal<Boolean> that you set to true before making a recursive call, for example:
if (!threadLocal.get()) {
threadLocal.set(true);
try {
// your code here.
} finally {
threadLocal.set(false);
}
}
This way, you can keep track of a recursive call. You do however need to manage your state somehome. One option would be to inject a holder class for your property into the bootstrap class loader using the Instrumentation interface.
Alternatively, you can check the stack for a recurive call. This is not as efficient as the explicit state management but starting with Java 9, you can use the stack walker API which is much cheaper and makes this approachable.
Related
RANT-BEGIN
Before jumping right into already answered band wagon, please read this paper about SE outdated answers https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8669958
Things changes after a time, and I am afraid Computer science is one of the most if not the most field out there where APIs and Interfaces change radically very very fast. Needless to say that a solution that might worked last month might not after latest feature added to a platform/framework. I humbly request you to not mark this question as answered with decade old post when many mainstream things did not even existed. If you dont know latest solution dont bother about it and leave question for someone else who might.
For a community representative of Computer Science where innovations is everyday thing, it is very toxic, new comer unfriendly and conservative.
END-RANT
This question has already been answered by me and will be accepted tomorrow (SE policy). Thank you for your interest.
Many times you have function pointers in unmanaged context which are called by some kind of events, We will see how it can be achieved with Top-Level Functions and also with member functions of a managed class.
Again, Please dont mark it as answered by linking to a decade old posts.
PS:
So many edits due to unstable internet in third world country, yeah bite me!
unmanaged.cpp
#pragma unmanaged
// Declare an unmanaged function type that takes one int arguments and callbacks
// our function after incrementing it by 1
// Note the use of __stdcall for compatibility with managed code
// if your unmanaged callback uses any other calling convention you can
// UnmanagedFunctionPointerAttribute (check msdn for more info) on your delegate
typedef int(__stdcall* ANSWERCB)(int);//Signature of native callback
int TakesCallback(ANSWERCB fp, int a) {
if (fp) {
return fp(a+1);//Native Callback
}
// This code will be executed when passed without fp
return 0;
}
#pragma managed
managed.cpp
using namespace System;
using namespace System::Runtime::InteropServices;
namespace Callbacks {
// Following delegate is for unmanaged code and must match its signature
public delegate void MyNativeDelegate(int i);
// This delegate is for managed/derived code and ideally should have only managed parameters
public delegate void MyManagedDelegate(int i);
public ref class TestCallback {// Our demo Managed class
private:
GCHandle gch;// kept reference so that it can be freed once we are done with it
void NativeCallbackListener(int i);//unmanaged code will call this function
public:
void TriggerCallback(int i); // Its here for demo purposes, usually unmanaged code will call automatically
event MyManagedDelegate^ SomethingHappened;//plain old event
~TestCallback();//free gch in destructor as its managed.
};
};
void Callbacks::TestCallback::NativeCallbackListener(int i) {
// Callback from Native code,
// If you need to transform your arguments do it here, like transforming void* to somekind of native structure.
// and then pass SomethingHappened::raise with Managed Class/Struct
return SomethingHappened::raise(i); // similar to SomethingHappened.Invoke() in c#
}
void Callbacks::TestCallback::TriggerCallback(int i)
{
MyNativeDelegate^ fp = gcnew MyNativeDelegate(this, &TestCallback::NativeCallbackListener);
// use this if your nativecallback function is not a member function MyNativeDelegate^ fp = gcnew MyNativeDelegate(&NativeCallbackListener);
gch = GCHandle::Alloc(fp);
IntPtr ip = Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(fp);
ANSWERCB cb = static_cast<ANSWERCB>(ip.ToPointer());// (ANSWERCB)ip.ToPointer(); works aswell
// Simulating native call, it should callback to our function ptr NativeCallbackListener with 2+1;
// Ideally Native code keeps function pointer and calls back without pointer being provided every time.
// Most likely with a dedicated function for that.
TakesCallback(cb, i);
}
void Callbacks::TestCallback::~TestCallBack() {
gch.Free();//Free GCHandle so GC can collect
}
implementation.cpp
using namespace System;
void OnSomethingHappened(int i);
int main(array<System::String^>^ args)
{
auto cb = gcnew Callbacks::TestCallback();
cb->SomethingHappened += gcnew Callbacks::MyManagedDelegate(&OnSomethingHappened);
cb->TriggerCallback(1);
return 0;
}
void OnSomethingHappened(int i)
{
Console::WriteLine("Got call back with " + i);
}
There are a lot of samples for C#, but only some code snippets for C++ on MSDN. I have put it together and I think it will work, but I am not sure if I am releasing all the COM references I have to.
Your code is correct--the reference count on the IBufferByteAccess interface of *buffer is incremented by the call to QueryInterface, and you must call Release once to release that reference.
However, if you use ComPtr<T>, this becomes much simpler--with ComPtr<T>, you cannot call any of the three members of IUnknown (AddRef, Release, and QueryInterface); it prevents you from calling them. Instead, it encapsulates calls to these member functions in a way that makes it difficult to screw things up. Here's an example of how this would look:
// Get the buffer from the WriteableBitmap:
IBuffer^ buffer = bitmap->PixelBuffer;
// Convert from C++/CX to the ABI IInspectable*:
ComPtr<IInspectable> bufferInspectable(AsInspectable(buffer));
// Get the IBufferByteAccess interface:
ComPtr<IBufferByteAccess> bufferBytes;
ThrowIfFailed(bufferInspectable.As(&bufferBytes));
// Use it:
byte* pixels(nullptr);
ThrowIfFailed(bufferBytes->Buffer(&pixels));
The call to bufferInspectable.As(&bufferBytes) performs a safe QueryInterface: it computes the IID from the type of bufferBytes, performs the QueryInterface, and attaches the resulting pointer to bufferBytes. When bufferBytes goes out of scope, it will automatically call Release. The code has the same effect as yours, but without the error-prone explicit resource management.
The example uses the following two utilities, which help to keep the code clean:
auto AsInspectable(Object^ const object) -> Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr<IInspectable>
{
return reinterpret_cast<IInspectable*>(object);
}
auto ThrowIfFailed(HRESULT const hr) -> void
{
if (FAILED(hr))
throw Platform::Exception::CreateException(hr);
}
Observant readers will notice that because this code uses a ComPtr for the IInspectable* we get from buffer, this code actually performs an additional AddRef/Release compared to the original code. I would argue that the chance of this impacting performance is minimal, and it's best to start from code that is easy to verify as correct, then optimize for performance once the hot spots are understood.
This is what I tried so far:
// Get the buffer from the WriteableBitmap
IBuffer^ buffer = bitmap->PixelBuffer;
// Get access to the base COM interface of the buffer (IUnknown)
IUnknown* pUnk = reinterpret_cast<IUnknown*>(buffer);
// Use IUnknown to get the IBufferByteAccess interface of the buffer to get access to the bytes
// This requires #include <Robuffer.h>
IBufferByteAccess* pBufferByteAccess = nullptr;
HRESULT hr = pUnk->QueryInterface(IID_PPV_ARGS(&pBufferByteAccess));
if (FAILED(hr))
{
throw Platform::Exception::CreateException(hr);
}
// Get the pointer to the bytes of the buffer
byte *pixels = nullptr;
pBufferByteAccess->Buffer(&pixels);
// *** Do the work on the bytes here ***
// Release reference to IBufferByteAccess created by QueryInterface.
// Perhaps this might be done before doing more work with the pixels buffer,
// but it's possible that without it - the buffer might get released or moved
// by the time you are done using it.
pBufferByteAccess->Release();
When using C++/WinRT (instead of C++/CX) there's a more convenient (and more dangerous) alternative. The language projection generates a data() helper function on the IBuffer interface that returns a uint8_t* into the memory buffer.
Assuming that bitmap is of type WriteableBitmap the code can be trimmed down to this:
uint8_t* pixels{ bitmap.PixelBuffer().data() };
// *** Do the work on the bytes here ***
// No cleanup required; it has already been dealt with inside data()'s implementation
In the code pixels is a raw pointer into data controlled by the bitmap instance. As such it is only valid as long as bitmap is alive, but there is nothing in the code that helps the compiler (or a reader) track that dependency.
For reference, there's an example in the WriteableBitmap::PixelBuffer documentation illustrating the use of the (otherwise undocumented) helper function data().
The problem: I'm crashing when I want to render my incoming data which was retrieved asynchronously.
The app starts and displays some dialog boxes using XAML. Once the user fills in their data and clicks the login button, the XAML class has in instance of a worker class that does the HTTP stuff for me (asynchronously using IXMLHTTPRequest2). When the app has successfully logged in to the web server, my .then() block fires and I make a callback to my main xaml class to do some rendering of the assets.
I am always getting crashes in the delegate though (the main XAML class), which leads me to believe that I cannot use this approach (pure virtual class and callbacks) to update my UI. I think I am inadvertently trying to do something illegal from an incorrect thread which is a byproduct of the async calls.
Is there a better or different way that I should be notifying the main XAML class that it is time for it to update it's UI? I am coming from an iOS world where I could use NotificationCenter.
Now, I saw that Microsoft has it's own Delegate type of thing here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/hh755798.aspx
Do you think that if I used this approach instead of my own callbacks that it would no longer crash?
Let me know if you need more clarification or what not.
Here is the jist of the code:
public interface class ISmileServiceEvents
{
public: // required methods
virtual void UpdateUI(bool isValid) abstract;
};
// In main XAML.cpp which inherits from an ISmileServiceEvents
void buttonClick(...){
_myUser->LoginAndGetAssets(txtEmail->Text, txtPass->Password);
}
void UpdateUI(String^ data) // implements ISmileServiceEvents
{
// This is where I would render my assets if I could.
// Cannot legally do much here. Always crashes.
// Follow the rest of the code to get here.
}
// In MyUser.cpp
void LoginAndGetAssets(String^ email, String^ password){
Uri^ uri = ref new URI(MY_SERVER + "login.json");
String^ inJSON = "some json input data here"; // serialized email and password with other data
// make the HTTP request to login, then notify XAML that it has data to render.
_myService->HTTPPostAsync(uri, json).then([](String^ outputJson){
String^ assets = MyParser::Parse(outputJSON);
// The Login has returned and we have our json output data
if(_delegate)
{
_delegate->UpdateUI(assets);
}
});
}
// In MyService.cpp
task<String^> MyService::HTTPPostAsync(Uri^ uri, String^ json)
{
return _httpRequest.PostAsync(uri,
json->Data(),
_cancellationTokenSource.get_token()).then([this](task<std::wstring> response)
{
try
{
if(_httpRequest.GetStatusCode() != 200) SM_LOG_WARNING("Status code=", _httpRequest.GetStatusCode());
String^ j = ref new String(response.get().c_str());
return j;
}
catch (Exception^ ex) .......;
return ref new String(L"");
}, task_continuation_context::use_current());
}
Edit: BTW, the error I get when I go to update the UI is:
"An invalid parameter was passed to a function that considers invalid parameters fatal."
In this case I am just trying to execute in my callback is
txtBox->Text = data;
It appears you are updating the UI thread from the wrong context. You can use task_continuation_context::use_arbitrary() to allow you to update the UI. See the "Controlling the Execution Thread" example in this document (the discussion of marshaling is at the bottom).
So, it turns out that when you have a continuation, if you don't specify a context after the lambda function, that it defaults to use_arbitrary(). This is in contradiction to what I learned in an MS video.
However by adding use_currrent() to all of the .then blocks that have anything to do with the GUI, my error goes away and everything is able to render properly.
My GUI calls a service which generates some tasks and then calls to an HTTP class that does asynchronous stuff too. Way back in the HTTP classes I use use_arbitrary() so that it can run on secondary threads. This works fine. Just be sure to use use_current() on anything that has to do with the GUI.
Now that you have my answer, if you look at the original code you will see that it already contains use_current(). This is true, but I left out a wrapping function for simplicity of the example. That is where I needed to add use_current().
I'm trying to find an elegant way to retry an operation when a WCF channel is in faulted state. I've tried using the Policy Injection AB to reconnect and retry the operation when a faulted state exception occurs on first call, but the PolicyInjection.Wrap method doesn't seem to like wrapping the TransparentProxy objects (proxy returned from ChannelFactory.CreateChannel).
Is there any other mechanism I could try or how could I try get the PIAB solution working correctly - any links, examples, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Here is the code I was using that was failing:
var channelFactory = new ChannelFactory(endpointConfigurationName);
var proxy = channelFactory.CreateChannel(...);
proxy = PolicyInjection.Wrap<IService>(proxy);
Thank you.
I would rather use callback functions, something like this:
private SomeServiceClient proxy;
//This method invokes a service method and recreates the proxy if it's in a faulted state
private void TryInvoke(Action<SomeServiceClient> action)
{
try
{
action(this.proxy);
}
catch (FaultException fe)
{
if (proxy.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
this.proxy.Abort();
this.proxy = new SomeServiceClient();
//Probably, there is a better way than recursion
TryInvoke(action);
}
}
}
//Any real method
private void Connect(Action<UserModel> callback)
{
TryInvoke(sc => callback(sc.Connect()));
}
And in your code you should call
ServiceProxy.Instance.Connect(user => MessageBox.Show(user.Name));
instead of
var user = ServiceProxy.Instance.Connect();
MessageBox.Show(user.Name);
Although my code uses proxy-class approach, you can write a similar code with Channels.
Thank you so much for your reply. What I ended up doing was creating a decorator type class that implemented the interface of my service, which then just wrapped the transparent proxy generated by the ChannelFactory. I was then able to use the Policy Injection Application Block to create a layer on top of this that would inject code into each operation call that would try the operation, and if a CommunicationObjectFaultedException occurred, would abort the channel, recreate it and retry the operation. It's working great now - although it works great, the only downside though is the wrapper class mentioned having to implement every service operation, but this was the only way I could use the PIAB as this made sense for me for in case I did find a way in future, it was easy enough to change just using interfaces.
I just asked a question that helps about using generics (or polymorphism) to avoid duplication of code. I am really trying to follow the DRY principle.
So I just ran into the following code...
Sub OutputDataToExcel()
OutputLine("Output DataBlocks", 1)
OutputDataBlocks()
OutputLine("")
OutputLine("Output Numbered Inventory", 1)
OutputNumberedInventory()
OutputLine("")
OutputLine("Output Item Summaries", 1)
OutputItemSummaries()
OutputLine("")
End Sub
Should I rewrite this code to be as follows using the Action delegate...
Sub OutputDataToExcel()
OutputData("Output DataBlocks", New Action(AddressOf OutputDataBlocks))
OutputData("Output Numbered Inventory", New Action(AddressOf OutputNumberedInventory))
OutputData("Output Item Summaries", New Action(AddressOf OutputItemSummaries))
End Sub
Sub OutputData(ByVal outputDescription As String, ByVal outputType As Action)
OutputLine(outputDescription, 1)
outputType()
OutputLine("")
End Sub
I realize this question is subjective. I am just wondering about how religiously you follow DRY. Would you do this?
Seth
I've seen this called the "Hole in the middle" pattern. The "Real World Functional Programming" book mentions it. Here's a link.
http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/the-hole-in-the-middle-pattern/
See, there’s a pattern I’ve gotten
used to in Ocaml- and I’d even used it
in Perl, which I think of as the “hole
in the middle” pattern. The basic idea
is that you have two pieces of code
that are almost exactly identical,
except for that little middle part
there. The idea is that you factor out
the common code into a single
function, which takes a function
pointer as an argument. The middle
part in the shared code is replaced by
a call to the function pointer, and
the two places which are being
combined simply call the combined
function with a pointer to a function
that contains the unique part.
I wouldn't say I use it all the time, but I have used Action delegate to avoid code duplication. One scenario where I have used it is to wrap WCF calls (inside a client proxy) to avoid the same boiler plate code.
private void InvokeAndHandleFaults(
Action<Data, Context> wcfCall,
Data data,
Context context)
{
bool isSuccess = false;
try
{
wcfCall(data, context);
if (this.ChannelFactory.State != System.ServiceModel.CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
this.ChannelFactory.Close();
}
isSuccess = true;
}
catch (FaultException ex)
{
HandleFault(ex);
}
finally
{
if (!isSuccess)
{
this.ChannelFactory.Abort();
}
}
}
In terms of the example in the question, I would probably not use an Action. I would definitely not refactor to use an Action. Mainly because the actual logic is quite simple so I don't see much benefit. As the "complexity"/size of the repeated code increased I would be more likely to use a delegate.