I want to use a publish/subscribe model in my AllJoyn application. I have several objects that implement the same interface, then they differ only in object path. With the Notification Service it seems to me you can select only the application and not the specific object, while using the Observer you can specify only the interface (which would include all objects). What is the best way to implement it?
If each of your objects publishes an About message, an About listener will be able to get the path from the About message. Look at the about and aboutlistener in alljoyn_core/samples for an example.
Related
I just started with Dapr a few days back and although I am able to publish and subscribe to events in Dapr, the way I am doing so is using the Topic method attribute on an action method within a controller such as this...
And while this works I prefer not to mix integration events with service API. This is the Swagger...
I get that the topic name is long but it's so I can ensure unique topics.
What I'd prefer is to position the Handler outside of any Controller. Something like this..
Is this even possible?
I derived a solution out of the .Net Dapr client routing sample.
For each event I add a MapPost endpoint similar to the following
The RequestDelegator receives the event for a given Topic, it will resolve the handler class from the interface and topic attributes and then invoke it's handle method, passing in the event data from Dapr.
My services follow the CQRS and EventSourcing patterns, as such integration events will rarely be the same shape as the command inputs. In my case, events are typically much lighter than a commands, consisting of mostly related Ids.
I am trying to run some code on objects that are loaded from RavenDB, and I need to do it just after the object has been loaded with its property values.
I've tried intercepting the deserialization process using a CustomCreationConverter and overriding ReadJson, but the object I can access at that point has all the properties set, except the one I need : the Id. Is there somewhere else I can slot into the pipeline in order to do this?
The reason you don't see the Id is because it's not part of the document, it's in the metadata as #id.
If you want to intercept client side, you can register a custom Conversion Listener. Create a class that implements IDocumentConversionListener and register it with documentStore.RegisterListener(). In the DocumentToEntity method, you can run your custom logic. The documentation is lacking on Listeners in general, but there is another topic that also uses them:
http://ravendb.net/kb/16/using-optimistic-concurrency-in-real-world-scenarios
The other option would be to add a bundle that intercepts on the server side. For that, you would use a Read Trigger.
I have created objects that are interfaces to a web service. One typical object would be a "TaskService". When a client uses one of these objects, it invokes one of the service's methods (such as "GetTasks") and the service will asynchronously go off to call the remote web service, and post back the retrieved data via a delegate.
Currently, to use one of these services you have to create it with [[TaskService alloc] init], but I decided it makes more sense to make each service into a singleton object.
Is it common to see singleton objects that hold reference to delegates? My main issue with the design, is that each object, whenever it requires use of a particular service, will have to set itself as the delegate before invoking the service, which doesn't seem quite right to me... What if another object were to set itself as the delegate inbetween you setting yourself as the delegate and invoking the service?
Many thanks in advance!
Regards,
Nick
Imo this is not a good idea for the reason you cited. The Singleton pattern is really for things there are only one of, but it sounds like your app can have need for multiple instances of these services. I think you'd wind up working around this (using an operations queue or some kind of delegate multiplexer) when you really just need to instantiate multiple instances of your service.
When the occasion warrants the use of a Singleton object, I always avoid delegation for the reason you cite. Consumers of a singleton can't know (without some ugly coding) if they're stepping on some other consumer's toes by setting themselves as the one-and-only delegate of the singleton. NSNotifications are a much cleaner tool for the job; any arbitrary number of listeners can consume the notifications without caring who else may be listening.
Delegation works best when there is clear ownership between the classes. Nobody owns a singleton.
Singleton isn't really the problem, you cause the same sort of issues by simply instancing a class and passing it about as a global variable.
As other's have mentioned a queue is a possibility, or when you invoke a task on a service in your Singleton have it instance a TaskRequest object passing in the method and the call back delegate, that way requests can't trample on each other. In fact it would be a good idea to do that with a queue anyway.
The scope of a singleton is entire application. For example: Let consider the example of shopping application the logger data, about the user ID which need to be accessible on different part of application like order, payment, cart etc.
Delegates are used for 1 to 1 communication, for example: You can take as example You have two classes TV and remote control device. You want to change the channel of TV. Delegate methods of TV for changing channel are implemented in remote control device class. So you use remote control device and you change the channel of the TV.
The singleton is used to communicate with multiple receivers, while the delegation pattern is used usually for 1 to 1 communication.
I have a WCF service application (actually, it uses WCF Web API preview 5) that intercepts each request and extracts several header values passed from the client. The idea is that the 'interceptor' will extract these values and setup a ClientContext object that is then globally available within the application for the duration of the request. The server is stateless, so the context is per-call.
My problem is that the application uses IoC (Unity) for dependency injection so there is no use of singleton's, etc. Any class that needs to use the context receives it via DI.
So, how do I 'dynamically' create a new context object for each request and make sure that it is used by the container for the duration of that request? I also need to be sure that it is completely thread-safe in that each request is truly using the correct instance.
UPDATE
So I realize as I look into the suggestions below that part of my problem is encapsulation. The idea is that the interface used for the context (IClientContext) contains only read-only properties so that the rest of the application code doesn't have the ability to make changes. (And in a team development environment, if the code allows it, someone will inevitably do it.)
As a result, in my message handler that intercepts the request, I can get an instance of the type implementing the interface from the container but I can't make use of it. I still want to only expose a read-only interface to all other code but need a way to set the property values. Any ideas?
I'm considering implementing two interfaces, one that provides read-only access and one that allows me to initialize the instance. Or casting the resolved object to a type that allows me to set the values. Unfortunately, this isn't fool-proof either but unless someone has a better idea, it might be the best I can do.
Read Andrew Oakley's Blog on WCF specific lifetime managers. He creates a UnityOperationContextLifetimeManager:
we came up with the idea to build a Unity lifetime manager tied to
WCF's OperationContext. That way, our container objects would live
only for the lifetime of the request...
Configure your context class with that lifetime manager and then just resolve it. It should give you an "operation singleton".
Sounds like you need a Unity LifetimeManager. See this SO question or this MSDN article.
I'm new to WCF, so apologies if I'm missing the boat completely.
It seems like WCF provides plenty of functionality for using the "Channel" layer by itself. For example, to create a server, you can create a channel listener from a binding and call WaitForRequest, Reply, etc. These methods all deal with Message objects, so it is up to you to do something with the message.
My question has to do with what happens once we've already got a message. Suppose I have an object that implements a service, described by a ServiceContract, and a Message object which I know represents a call to a particular operation. What I'd really like to do is something like:
Message requestMessage = GetMessageSomehow();
OperationDescription oc = GetContractForMessage();
Message replyMessage = Invoke(myService, oc, requestMessage);
At the very least, if I could somehow access the IOperationInvoker and IDispatchMessageFormatter objects that get created for a type, it would be pretty simple to chain them together to get the functionality I'm looking for.
In my particular case, I need to implement some simple Soap 1.1 and 1.2 services (with no WS-Addressing). I already have HttpListenerRequest/Response objects, and can route based off of either the SOAPAction or ContentType header.
I think having this functionality would also be pretty useful for unit testing. For example, I need to implement to existing clients. It would be nice to have unit tests where I could test that the Attributes on the service class are correct (i.e. that the message that I know I will be getting gets properly translated into a call on my service interface).
Any suggestions?
Serialization/Deserialization from that Message instance to actual parameters for a call is usually done by an IDispatchMessageFormatter / IClientMessageFormatter.
On the server side, an IDispatchMessageFormatter is injected into the DispatchRuntime by a custom operation behavior that the data contract serializer (or other serializer) inserts.
But... if you're not using ServiceHost, there's no DispatchRuntime. Basically, if you want all of this, you're going to have to do all the hard work yourself :)
That said, if you can get an OperationDescription object, you should be able to instantiate a DataContractSerializerOperationBehavior, but you won't be able to get an IDispatchMessageFormatter out of it... you can get an XmlObjectSerializer, though, which might, or might not, be useful for you.
Notice that an IOperationInvoker wouldn't help all that much, since that presumes you've already done message serialization/deserialization, so it's not really all that useful (and the rest of the functionality is fairly simple for basic use cases if you want to roll it yourself)