I need to coordinate a transaction between several SOAP services implemented in WCF. I know I can use the WS-Atomic transaction or oleTransactions.
For some technical reasons, I cannot make any use of the MSDTC. Is there a way I can coordinate a transaction between services without using the MSDTC?
Thanks!
Can't we make WCF to manage transactions without implicitly using MSDTC.
i.e. The wcf application should manage transactions even when I disable the Distributed Transaction Co-ordinator.
Isn't is possible.
You need to visit this link:
Configure MS DTC Component Services for WCF Transactions
Related
Simplified... We are using NServiceBus for updating our storage.
In our sagas we first read data from our storage and updates the data and puts it back again to storage.The NServicebus instance is selfhosted in a windows service. Calls to storage are separated in its own assembly ('assembly1').
Now we will also need synchronous read from our storage through WCF. In some cases there will be the same reads that were needed when updating in sagas.
I have my opinion quite clear but maybe I am wrong and therefore I am asking this question...
Should we set up a separate WCF service that is using a copy of 'assembly1'?
Or, should the WCF instance host nservicebus?
Or, is there even a better way to do it?
It is in a way two endpoints, WCF for the synchronous calls and the windows service that hosts nservicebus (which already exists) right now.
I see no reason to separate into two distinct endpoints in your question or comments. It sounds like you are describing a single logical service, and my default position would be to host each logical service in a single process. This is usually the simplest approach, as it makes deployment and troubleshooting easier.
Edit
Not sure if this is helpful, but my current client runs NSB in an IIS-hosted WCF endpoint. So commands are handled via NSB messages, while queries are still exposed via WCF. To date we have had no problems hosting the two together in a single process.
Generally speaking, a saga should only update its own state (the Data property) and send messages to other endpoints. It should not update other state or make RPC calls (like to WCF).
Before giving more specific recommendations, it would be best to understand more about the specific responsibilities of your saga and the data being updated by 'assembly1'.
I want to wrap a WCF external web service call and and a local database call (nhibernate) in one atomic transaction.
Is this even possible?
At the moment I am doing the following:
Perform update on local database.
Perform update on web service.
If web service call is successful commit local changes to database.
But what happens if it fails on commit?
I am assuming by external web service you mean a service which is exposed across the public web.
If the external service supports WS-Atomic Transaction, then yes it's possible to propagate a local transaction across to the service.
However, it's questionable if this approach is wise, unless the external service is also wcf over wsHttpBinding.
If the external service is non-wcf then it's likely that there will be considerable pain involved in integration; although WS-AT is designed for inter-operability, in practice there will almost certainly be variation in how the protocol has been interpreted by the different vendors, which could lead to the client and service being effectively non-inter-operable.
But what happens if it fails on commit?
As an alternative solution I would consider a compensatory pattern for this problem. As an example:
Update DB
Call service
If service call success, commit DB
If service call failure, do not commit DB
The benefit here is that system consistency can be provided in a single place. However, your problem now becomes how to tell if the call was successful or not.
Unfortunately, when you make a service call it's always possible for the call to return failure but actually succeed. A good example of this is service time-out.
How do you actually tell if you call failed? The only way is to perform a lookup against the remote resource to work out if the state of the system includes your update.
I have a question with regards to WCF client channel lifetime while using Message security, but first, a few notes on my company's setup and guidelines:
Our client-server applications are solely for intranet use
Our clients are WPF applications
Our company's guidelines for WCF usage are:
Use wsHttpBinding
Use Message Security
Service InstanceMode: PerCall
Service ConcurrencyMode: Multiple
It is the first time I have to use message security on an intranet setup. Here's how I typically use my client channels to limit the amount of resources kept on the client and server and literally just to keep things simple:
Instantiate + open channel (with ChannelFactory)
Make the WCF call
Close / dispose the channel asap
While monitoring this strategy with Fiddler 2, I noticed that because of Message Security, a single WCF call ended up causing 5 round-trips to my service:
3 initial round-trips for handshaking
1 round-trip for the actual WCF call
1 call to close the session (since I am using PerCall, I am assuming this is more a security session at the IIS level)
If I were to turn off Message Security, as one would expect, one WCF ended up being... A single round-trip.
As of now, I must use Message Security because that's our guideline. With this in mind and knowing that we make hundreds of WCF calls from each client WPF app a session, would you therefore advise to open the client channel and keep it open for re-use instead of disposing of it every time?
I would advise not to preemptively turn off features until you know they are a known problem. Preoptimization is needless work. Until you notice your clients having lagging problems, I would not worry about the message security. At that point, try a few things: one of your approaches of keeping a client open longer; two, try grouping requests together without turning off message security; three, consider caching, if you can; four, if the message security is the final culprit, then try a different method. I wouldn't just turn something off because I see a bit more network traffic until I knew it was the absolute last thing that I could do to improve performance.
I am exposing a WCF service through a basicHttpBinding that executes several operations on a database.
I want to guarantee that if the client does not receive the reply the database operations are rolled back (without any transaction flow through WCF).
E.g. the client calls the "DoX" method which executes on the server but before it is finished the client crashes. The database operations should then be rolled back as soon as the reply can not be send to the client.
Is there any way to do that? Will the [OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired=true)] attribute work in such a manner? Is there a possibility to handle communication errors on the server side?
Update 1:
It seems [OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired=true)] commits the transaction before the reply is send to the client and thus can not be used to perform a rollback if the client does not receive the reply.
Update 2:
To state it clearly again, I do not have the need for the transaction to interact in any way with the client side. The client should neither know of the transaction, have the ability to cancel or commit it, nor should any transaction flow through the binding. The only place I want the transaction to rollback is on the server side if the transport channel can not deliver the message to the receiving client. With the case of TCP/IP this information should be readily available to the server. (No ACK of the TCP packet send back to the client)
So a hypothetical execution flow on the server side (notice the lack of client side) should be:
Receive client request
Start transaction
Execute all logic inside the service operation
Send reply back to client
if (reply.failedToReceive) { transaction.Rollback() } // due to a failing TCP/IP transmission
There is no easy answer to this question. You are asking for a behaviour that is implemented in WS-* but done using basic SOAP. I think your only option if you REALLY can't switch to wsHttpBinding or use duplex as suggested by #Trevor Pilley is to try to mimic the behaviour of WS-Transaction in your own custom protocol based on basic SOAP.
You should be able to get some simplification over the full WS-Transaction specification because
You will probably only need to support transactions over a single service - you will not be doing a distributed transaction over several independent services
You will not need to support both short a transactions (WS-AtomicTransaction) as well as long running transactions (WS-BusinessActivity) probaby atomic transactions would do
You would not need to support any kind of extensibility model (WS-Coordination)
You would not need to implement a discovery/metadata model that describes the protocol (e.g. like WSDL) because you would be coding the protocol behaviour directly into the client and service.
However, you would probably need elements of both WS-Coordination and WS-AtomicTransaction. This is not a simple task by any means and it will be easy to miss something subtle that could cause either rollbacks to not happen or (just as bad) to destroy the performance of your service by having long duration locks all over your database due to crashed clients.
Like I say, this is a complex behaviour and if you cannot use ready-made, standardised protocols, there is no simple answer.
I am using WCF to Access My BL and DAL. I want to handle transactions from client not from the BL.
But when I use TransactionScope on client side, the transaction does not work correctly. Data is saved if the transaction is aborted or an exception is thrown.
When I use TransactionScope in BL it works well. My problem is that I want to handle transactions from consumer applications not from service. Is there any way to do That?
Any Suggestion? Please Help.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/690136/All-About-TransactionScope
There can only be two problem
The transaction flow is not set for bindings
Or using a binding that does not support distributed transaction