How to make ASP.NET MVC Controller Methods Async - asp.net-mvc-4

I'm launching multiple ajax calls to various MVC controllers to load different parts of my page. However it seems that when this gets to the controller only one runs at a time. I'm guessing this is because by default ASP.Net MVC controllers are synchronous? I've also tested loading a page on 2 browser tabs and the second tab always waits for the first.
To get round this I've attempted to make the controller methods in question asynchronous. I've done this by doing the following
Append Async to controller method name
Make the controller methods return async Task
Used the Task.Factory.StartNew method to do the body of work in the method in a separate thread.
For example the controller methods in question now look like this...
public async Task<JsonResult> GetUser(int userId)
{
var result = await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Task.Run(() =>
{
return userService.GetUser(userId);
})).Result;
return new JsonResult()
{
Data = result,
JsonRequestBehavior = JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet
};
}
However it still seems to be synchronous. Am I missing something or going about this completely the wrong way? I've not really used the Task Library much so may be missing something big?

No, your assumptions are most likely wrong. Your problem is likely one (or both) of two problems.
First, most web browsers have request limits that only allow a certain number of request to the same server at a time.
Second, you are probably running into a limitation of the Session object that causes multiple requests that use session to be serialized, because Session is not, itself, multi-threaded.
See http://tech-journals.com/jonow/2011/10/22/the-downsides-of-asp-net-session-state
The short answer is that if you don't use session in your action method, simply add this to the method...
[SessionState(SessionStateBehavior.Disabled)]
public class AjaxTestController : Controller
{
//...As above
}
If you only need to read the session, then do this:
[SessionState(SessionStateBehavior.ReadOnly)]
public class AjaxTestController : Controller
{
//...As above
}
There's not much you can do about the browser limitations though, since different browsers have specific request limits. These can be changed with registry (or browser config) entries (usually), but you can't force your users to do that in most cases.

One of the important feature introduced in MVC 4.0 was of Asynchronous controllers which enables to write the asynchronous action methods. Asynchronous controller allows an operation to get performed without making the working thread idle.
When an asynchronous action is invoked, the following steps occur:
The Web server gets a thread from the thread pool (the worker thread) and schedules it to handle an incoming request. This worker thread initiates an asynchronous operation. The worker thread is returned to the thread pool to service another Web request. When the asynchronous operation is complete, it notifies ASP.NET. The Web server gets a worker thread from the thread pool (which might be a different thread from the thread that started the asynchronous operation) to process the remainder of the request, including rendering the response.
Converting Synchronous Action Methods to Asynchronous Action Methods
Following is the example of synchronous action method and the its asynchronous equivalent version.
Synchronous Controller:
public class TestController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View();
}
}
Asynchronous variant of above operation:
public class TestController : AsyncController
{
public void IndexAsync()
{
return View();
}
public ActionResult IndexCompleted()
{
return View();
}
}
Steps:
Synchronous Controllers are the classes derived from the Controller
class to implement an AsyncController instead of deriving the
controller from Controller, derive it from AsyncController class.
Controllers that derive from AsyncController enable ASP.NET to
process asynchronous requests, and they can still service synchronous
action methods.
Corresponding to the synchronous action method in Synchronous
controller you need to create two methods for the action in
asynchronous controller.First method that initiates the asynchronous
process must have a name that consists of the action and the suffix
"Async". The other method that is invoked when the asynchronous
process finishes (the callback method) must have a name that consists
of the action and the suffix "Completed".
In the above sample example, the Index action has been turned into two methods in asynchronous controller: IndexAsync and IndexCompleted.
The IndexAsync method returns void while the IndexCompleted method returns an ActionResult instance. Although the action consists of two methods, it is accessed using the same URL as for a synchronous action method (for example, Controller/Index).
Note the following about asynchronous action methods:
If the action name is Sample, the framework will look for
SampleAsync and SampleCompleted methods.
View pages should be named Sample.aspx rather than SampleAsync.aspx
or SampleCompleted.aspx. (The action name is Sample, not
SampleAsync)
A controller cannot contain an asynchronous method named SampleAsync
and a synchronous method named Sample. If it does, an
AmbiguousMatchException exception is thrown because the SampleAsync
action method and the Sample action method have the same request
signature.
For more details click here : http://www.counsellingbyabhi.com/2014/05/asynchronous-controllers-in-aspnet-mvc.html

mvc controllers are async in nature, how did you determine it's synchronous? The only reason could only be some lock implemented within your userService.
You can try by making a couple of hundreds of ajax calls to your web services using jquery

Related

ServiceStack: Reinstate pipeline when invoking a Service manually?

As a follow-up to this question, I wanted to understand how my invoking of a Service manually can be improved. This became longer than I wanted, but I feel the background info is needed.
When doing a pub/sub (broadcast), the normal sequence and flow in the Messaging API isn't used, and I instead get a callback when a pub/sub message is received, using IRedisClient, IRedisSubscription:
_subscription.OnMessage = (channel, msg) =>
{
onMessageReceived(ParseJsonMsgToPoco(msg));
};
The Action onMessageReceived will then, in turn, invoke a normal .NET/C# Event, like so:
protected override void OnMessageReceived(MyRequest request)
{
OnMyEvent?.Invoke(this, new RequestEventArgs(request));
}
This works, I get my request and all that, however, I would like it to be streamlined into the other flow, the flow in the Messaging API, meaning, the request finds its way into a Service class implementation, and that all normal boilerplate and dependency injection takes place as it would have using Messaging API.
So, in my Event handler, I manually invoke the Service:
private void Instance_OnMyEvent(object sender, RequestEventArgs e)
{
using (var myRequestService = HostContext.ResolveService<MyRequestService>(new BasicRequest()))
{
myRequestService.Any(e.Request);
}
}
and the MyRequestService is indeed found and Any called, and dependency injection works for the Service.
Question 1:
Methods such as OnBeforeExecute, OnAfterExecute etc, are not called, unless I manually call them, like: myRequestService.OnBeforeExecute(e) etc. What parts of the pipeline is lost? Can it be reinstated in some easy way, so I don't have to call each of them, in order, manually?
Question 2:
I think I am messing up the DI system when I do this:
using (var myRequestService = HostContext.ResolveService<MyRequestService>(new BasicRequest()))
{
myRequestService.OnBeforeExecute(e.Request);
myRequestService.Any(e.Request);
myRequestService.OnAfterExecute(e.Request);
}
The effect I see is that the injected dependencies that I have registered with container.AddScoped, isn't scoped, but seems static. I see this because I have a Guid inside the injected class, and that Guid is always the same in this case, when it should be different for each request.
container.AddScoped<IRedisCache, RedisCache>();
and the OnBeforeExecute (in a descendant to Service) is like:
public override void OnBeforeExecute(object requestDto)
{
base.OnBeforeExecute(requestDto);
IRedisCache cache = TryResolve<IRedisCache>();
cache?.SetGuid(Guid.NewGuid());
}
So, the IRedisCache Guid should be different each time, but it isn't. This however works fine when I use the Messaging API "from start to finish". It seems that if I call the TryResolve in the AppHostBase descendant, the AddScoped is ignored, and an instance is placed in the container, and then never removed.
What parts of the pipeline is lost?
None of the request pipeline is executed:
myRequestService.Any(e.Request);
Is physically only invoking the Any C# method of your MyRequestService class, it doesn't (nor cannot) do anything else.
The recommended way for invoking other Services during a Service Request is to use the Service Gateway.
But if you want to invoke a Service outside of a HTTP Request you can use the RPC Gateway for executing non-trusted services as it invokes the full Request Pipeline & converts HTTP Error responses into Typed Error Responses:
HostContext.AppHost.RpcGateway.ExecuteAsync()
For executing internal/trusted Services outside of a Service Request you can use HostContext.AppHost.ExecuteMessage as used by ServiceStack MQ which applies Message Request Request/Response Filters, Service Action Filters & Events.
I have registered with container.AddScoped
Do not use Request Scoped dependencies outside of a HTTP Request, use Singleton if the dependencies are ThreadSafe, otherwise register them as Transient. If you need to pass per-request storage pass them in IRequest.Items.

How do you perform completely asynchrouns operations in ASP NET Core

Hello i am trying to do a trail log for some of my API endpoints.These logs are generated when the endpoint is called.I would like the writing of the logs to be done in an asynchrouns manner (as lightweight as possible) as to not affect the performance of my usual logic.
I was thinking to have a component that is injectable and can be called anywhere in my endpoints when a log is produced.The problem is that i seem to not find a suitable async solution:
Important service that needs not be obstructed by delays
public interface IImportantInterface
{
Task DoSomethingUndistrubedAsync(string value);
}
**Wrapper around Redis pub-sub**
public interface IIOService{
Task PublishAsync( object obj);
}
Controller
public class Controller
{
private IImportantInterface importantService;
private Publisher publisher;
[HttpPost]
public async Task SomeEndpointAsync(){
this.publisher.Publish([some_log]);
await this.importantService.DoSomethingUndisturbedAsync([something]);
}
public Controller(IImportantInterface importantService)
{
this.importantService=importantService;
}
}
Now comes the real problem.How do i make the smallest footprint for my Publisher.I came up with 3 scenarios but two of them are unfeasible due to going out of scope:
Attempt 1
Transient Service with Task scoped to method:
public class Publisher{
private IIOService writeService{get;set;}
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
Task t1=Task.Run(async()=>await writeService.PublishAsync(obj)); //t1 might not finished when method exits
}
}
Task t1 might not finish by the time the method ends.
Attempt 2
Task embedded in Transient Service
public class Publisher{ //publisher might get discarded when calling controller gets out of scope
private Task t1;
private IIOService writeService{get;set;}
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
t1=Task.Run(async ()=> this.IIOService.writeService(obj));
}
}
Now task will not get collected after method scope , but it might not finish by the time the calling Controller method class gets out of scope
Attempt 3
Singleton object with a ConcurrentQueue of Tasks that get enqueued.
This would not get out of scope but when would i clear the items?
public class Publisher{
private ConcurrentQueue<Task> Queue;
public async Task PublishAsync(object obj){
this.Queue.Enqueue();
}
}
P.S I want to publish these logs in a common place.From that place the target is to get published to a Redis database using the pub-sub functionality.
Should i just write to Redis ?
Hello i am trying to do a trail log for some of my API endpoints.These logs are generated when the endpoint is called.I would like the writing of the logs to be done in an asynchrouns manner (as lightweight as possible) as to not affect the performance of my usual logic.
I strongly recommend that you use an existing and exhaustively-tested logging library, of which there are many with modern capabilities such as semantic logging and async-compatible implicit state.
Modern logging libraries generally have a singleton kind of design, where logs are kept in-memory (and logging methods are synchronous). Then there is a separate "processor" which publishes these messages to a collector. If you insist on writing your own logging framework (why?), I would recommend you take the same approach as all the other highly successful logging frameworks.

The best way to deliver result from Service binding in Android

How to get result from the Service, if task run asynchronously?
If a task is started synchronously in main thread, there is no problem:
Object result = serviceInstanceInActivity.callMethod();
But if the task runs in other thread, we have a problem:
void asyncMethodInService() {
new MyTask().execute();
}
class MyTask extends AsyncTask<Void, Void, Result> {
// implementation of the others methods
public void onPostExecute(Result result) {
// We need to send data to Activity here
}
}
Of Course, it's work via ServiceConnection. In usual class, I would use interfaces as callback, but if I do same here, the Activity instance will leaked in Service via callback.
So, what is recommended way to deliver data in this cases?
I would use LocalBroadcastManager to broadcast an Intent containing the result, so that any interested activities can register for and receive the broadcast when the service completes its task.
If the data is complex and is not practical to pack into an Intent, you need to get a bit creative. You should probably use a ContentProvider and put a content URI into the intent which the activities can then use to query for the result. Or you might be able to store the result on a static singleton (or on your application instance) and just have the activity retrieve the updated value when it receives the broadcast. It depends on your requirements.
Hope that helps!

WCF Asynch pattern - Really required?

I have created one WCF service which performs a lengthy operation asynchronously using Asynch pattern. I have referred to below link to implement BeginAddNumbers and EndAddNumbers methods in the ServiceContract.
http://aspalliance.com/1335_Asynchronous_Pattern_in_Windows_Communication_Foundation.5
Everything is working fine. But I dont understand why we require this approach?
Even though its asynchronous operation on server, client will still blocked and we
have to invoke this operation asynchornously on client as well.
So instead of implementing operation asynchronously on server it's always
better to invoke operation asynchronously on client side to have responsive UI.
Can anyone help me to understand concept of implementing asynchronous operation on server side? Any practical example where I need to play around AsyncPattern=true in conjunction with OperationContract ?
Adding client code. Client is implemented using WPF application
private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
MathOperationClient c = new MathOperationClient();
Task t = new Task(new Action(() =>
{
///Even if AddNumbers is is implemented as asynchronous operation
///second call to AddNumbers get chance only after completing below
///call.
///Note: AddNumbers method takes 10 sec to execute
int nResult = c.AddNumbers(2, 3);
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(()=>{
label1.Content = nResult.ToString();
})
, null);
}));
t.Start();
Task t1 = new Task(new Action(() =>
{
///Below method is invoked only after executing first call ( above call with parameters 2 and 3 )
///in other words below call is blocked for 10 seconds.
///So what is advantage of implementing asynchronous AddNumbers method on server side?
int result = c.AddNumbers(5,5);
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
label2.Content = result.ToString();
})
, null);
}));
t1.Start();
}
Thanks, Hemant
this post has some information.
in general:
In case of WCF, the realproxy is of type System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannelProxy. This proxy implementation calls service method synchronously even if we call it using BeginInvoke.
WCF only issues asynchronous calls if the method that is called on a proxy begins with BeginXXX() and is decorated with [OperationContract(AsyncPattern=true)] attribute.
I like the idea to implement this server side; and clearly indicate this by naming the operation accordingly. After all, if a call is asynchronous in nature, why give the client the choice?
Another reason is scalability: doing it server-side decouples the request from the WCF dispatcher thread. This means that WCF threads will not be blocked.
See here for an example.
You could even decide to make it a one way call; and have the client poll at regular intervals; which is, in fact, my favorite approach.

Modeling Client Context in WCF Web API with MEF

I need to extract several header values at the start of each request and place them into a ClientContext object that can be injected into my application code by MEF. I am using Preview 5 of the WCF Web API and don't see a way to do this.
In 'standard' WCF, I would create a class that implements IExtension<OperationContext> and have the following property to wire it all together:
[Export(typeof(IClientContext)]
[PartCreationPolicy(CreationPolicy.NonShared)]
public static ClientContextExtension Current
{
get
{
var operationContext = OperationContext.Current;
if (operationContext == null)
return null;
var extension = operationContext.Extensions.Find<ClientContextExtension>();
if (extension == null)
{
extension = new ClientContextExtension();
operationContext.Extensions.Add(extension);
}
return extension;
}
}
A custom DelegatingHandler calls ClientContextExtension.Current and sets the properties from the header values. Unfortunately, with WCF Web API, OperationContext.Current is always null!
I cannot figure out a way to make this work with the Web API. Any help is appreciated!!!
I've come up with a working solution but remain open to other options. First, some rationale behind the original approach...
Because WCF uses thread pooling, anything based on a per-thread model may (and will) have a lifetime that extends beyond an individual request. I needed a way to store client context information pulled from the HTTP headers for each request as the information will be different each time. This means I can't persist the context information per-thread because the thread will be re-used.
Or can I?
The flaw in my logic was that thread re-use was the problem. In reality, each thread is only every servicing a single request at one time thereby making any information in that thread isolated to that request. Therefore, all I need to do is make sure that the information is relavent to that request and my problem is solved.
My solution was to refactor the Current property to reference a private static field marked with the [ThreadStatic()] attribute, ensuring that each instance was specific to the thread. Then, in my DelegatingHandler, which executes for each request, I reset the properties of the object for that request. Subsequent calls to Current during that request return the request-specific information and the next request handled by the thread gets updated in the DelegatingHandler so as far as my other code is concerned, the context is per-request.
Not perfect, but it at least gets me up and running for the moment. As I said, I am open to other solutions.
UPDATE
Upon closer inspection, this solution is not working as there is no thread affinity between the DelegatingHandler and the service code that is making use of the context object. As a result, sometimes my call to retrieve the ThreadStatic object works as expected but on other occasions I get a new instance because the code is operating on a different thread than the handler.
So, disregard this solution. Back to the drawing board.
UPDATE TO MY UPDATE
After discussing my problem with Glenn Block, it turns out that it is just a matter of making sure the context is set on the same thread the request handler (the service) is executing. The solution is to use an HttpOperationHandler instead of a MessageHandler.
According to Glenn, message handlers operate asynchronously which means they could execute on a different thread from the request handler (service) so we should never do anything in a message handler that requires thread affinity. On the other hand, operation handlers run synchronously on the same thread as the request handler, therefore we can rely on thread affinity.
So, I simply moved my code from a MessageHandler to an HttpOperationHandler and have the desired results.
You can read a full explanation here: http://sonofpirate.blogspot.com/2011/11/modeling-client-context-in-wcf-web-api.html
You can try to use a
HttpOperationHandler<HttpRequestMessage, HttpRequestMessage>
There you should be able to access the headers.