After certain actions (say a PUT or a DELETE) in my services, I will like to send a notification to a user or to a group of users, this is done before send the response of the action.
My way to implement notifications is quite simple, I have an interface:
public Interface INotification{
void send(string mail, string content);
void send(Group group, string content);
}
that represents every type of notification. I inject the types of notifications that are used in a given service but I don't see this as an optimal solution. Is there a better way to accomplish this? are any frameworks that integrates easily with ServiceStack that help me achieve this?
Another problem from my point of view is loading a template, this is done every time I send the notification. I don't like this approach since I assume that this is not optimal. (but this is a different problem)
Thanks for all the help you can provide me.
I am considering adding EventStore to my app to handle a similar scenario, with the added requirement of an auditable history of object changes:
https://github.com/joliver/EventStore
I've not tried it out yet.
Related
I have just completed my first API in Apigility. Right now it is basically a gateway to a database, storing and retrieving multi-page documents uploaded through an app.
Now I want to run some processing on the documents, e.g. process them through a 3rd party API or modify the image quality etc., and return them to the app users.
Where (in which class) do I generally put such logic? My first reflex would be to implement such logic in the Resource-Classes. However I feel that they will become quite messy, obstructing a clear view on the API's interface in the code and creating a dependency on a foreign API. Also, I feel limited because each method corresponds to an API call.
What if there is a certain processing/computing time? Meaning I cannot direct respond the result through a GET request. I thought about running an asynchronous process and send a push notification to the app, once the processing is complete. But again, where in the could would I ideally implement such processing logic?
I would be very happy to receive some architectural advice from someone who is more seasoned in developing APIs. Thank you.
You are able to use the zf-rest resource events to connect listeners with your additional custom logic without polluting your resources.
These events are fired in the RestController class (for example a post.create event here on line 382).
When you use Apigility-Doctrine module you can also use the events triggered in the DoctrineResource class (for example the DoctrineResourceEvent::EVENT_CREATE_POST event here on line 361) to connect your listeners.
You can use a queueing service like ZendQueue or something (a third party module) built on top of ZendQueue for managing that. You can find different ZF2 queueing systems/modules using Google.
By injecting the queueing service into your listener you can simply push your jobs directly into your queue.
I'm working with an application right now that uses a third-party API for handling some batch email-related tasks, and in order for that to work, we need to store some information in this service. Unfortunately, this information (first/last name, email address) is also something we want to use from our application. My normal inclination is to pick one canonical data source and stick with it, but round-tripping to a web service every time I want to look up these fields isn't really a viable option (we use some of them quite a bit), and the service's API requires the records to be stored there, so the duplication is sadly necessary.
But I have no interest in peppering every method throughout our business classes with code to synchronize data to the web service any time they might be updated, and I also don't think my entity should be aware of the service to update itself in a property setter (or whatever else is updating the "truth").
We use NHibernate for all of our DAL needs, and to my mind, this data replication is really a persistence issue - so I've whipped up a PoC implementation using an EventListener (both PostInsert and PostUpdate) that checks, if the entity is of type X, and any of fields [Y..Z] have been changed, update the web service with the new state.
I feel like this is striking a good balance between ensuring that our data is the canonical source and making sure that it gets replicated transparently and minimizing the chances for changes to fall through the cracks and get us into a mismatch situation (not the end of the world if eg. the service is unreachable, we just do a manual batch update later, but for everybody's sanity in the general case, the goal is that we never have to think about it), but my colleagues and I still have a degree of uncomfortableness with this way forward.
Is this a horrid idea that will invite raptors into my database at inopportune times? Is it a totally reasonable thing to do with an EventListener? Is it a serviceable solution to a less-than-ideal situation that we can just make do with and move on forever tainted? If we soldier on down this road, are there any gotchas I should be wary of in the Events pipeline?
In case of unreliable data stores (web service in your case), I would introduce a concept of transactions (operations) and store them in local database, then periodically pull them from DB and execute against the Web Service (other data store).
Something like this:
public class OperationContainer
{
public Operation Operation; //what ever operations you need CRUD, or some specific
public object Data; //your entity, business object or whatever
}
public class MyMailService
{
public SendMail (MailBusinessObject data)
{
DataAcceessLair<MailBusinessObject>.Persist(data);
OperationContainer operation = new OperationContainer(){Operation=insert, Data=data};
DataAcceessLair<OperationContainer>.Persist(operation);
}
}
public class Updater
{
Timer EverySec;
public void OnEverySec()
{
var data = DataAcceessLair<OperationContainer>.GetFirstIn(); //FIFO
var webServiceData = WebServiceData.Converr(data); // do the logic to prepare data for WebService
try
{
new WebService().DoSomething(data);
DataAcceessLair<OperationContainer>.Remove(data);
}
}
}
This is actually pretty close to the concept of smart client - technically not logicaly. Take a look at book: .NET Domain-Driven Design with C#: Problem-Design-Solution, chapter 10. Or take a look at source code from the book, it's pretty close to your situation: http://dddpds.codeplex.com/
I need to extend my WCF Data Service to include additional methods, not only the database tables..
But it doesn't seem to be working correctly.
Firstly i want to ask if this is legal? or frowned upon?
The reason i need to do it is i need add additional REST methods that will make a call to ASP.NET Membership services (the tables are in the db) to validate a login i.e.
public bool IsValidLogin(string username, string password)
{
return System.Web.Security.Membership.ValidateUser(username, password);
}
Here is what i have (i have simplied the IsValidLogin for testing).
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "TestMe")]
public bool IsValidLogin()
{
return true;
}
// This method is called only once to initialize service-wide policies.
public static void InitializeService(DataServiceConfiguration config)
{
// TODO: set rules to indicate which entity sets and service operations are visible, updatable, etc.
// Examples:
config.SetEntitySetAccessRule("*", EntitySetRights.AllRead);
config.SetServiceOperationAccessRule("IsValidLogin", ServiceOperationRights.All);
Now when i go to
http://localhost/MyDataAccess/MyService.svc/IsValidLogin
It seems to work i get an true back in the form of XML. But i have set a URI so i thought i could do this
http://localhost/MyDataAccess/MyService.svc/TestMe
But it fails? I am really confused, any ideas?
Also for it to work I needed to add this line, but a little but confused here
config.SetServiceOperationAccessRule("IsValidLogin", ServiceOperationRights.All);
Any help really appreciated
Not commenting on the REST dicsussion above, just posting a link on documentation on how to do so called "service operations": http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc668788.aspx
The ServiceOperation notion is a tacked on capability to provide exactly the escape you needed when you wanted to do something other than read data from a table.
Unfortunately, the default path in WCF REST has lead you to misunderstand how RESTful systems are supposed to work. REST is not just about exposing some data at URLs.
You really have two choices, either stick with RPC style of distributed computing that WS-*/SOAP based WCF provides or spend some time learning what REST is really all about. There are some links here to get you started.
I can't tell you what is the right approach for your scenario. What I can tell you is that you are not going to learn how to do REST from using the current WCF REST implementation. I'm not saying it is impossible to do, you just will be doing a lot of swimming upstream.
Is it ok from your real-world-experience to define service contract with one method which will accept some object as a form of request and return some other object as a result of that request. What I mean is instead of having method for creating, deleting, editing and searching customers I would have these activities encapsulated within DataContracts and what service would do after receiving such DataContract would be take some action accordingly. But service interface would be simple as that:
interface ISomeService
{
IMessageResult Process(IMessageRequest msg);
}
So IMessageRequest would have filed named OperationType = OperationTypes.CreateCustomer and rest of fields would provide enough information for the service that it could create Customer object or record in database or whatever. And IMessageResult could have field with some code for indication that customer was created or not.
What I'm trying to achieve by such design is an ability to easy delegate IMessageRequest to other internal services that client side wouldn't even know about. Another benefit I see is that if we will have to add some operation on customers we only provide additional DataContract for this operation and don't have to change anything on service interface side (I want to avoid this at all costs, I mean not new operations but changing service interface :)
So, what do you think? Is it good way of handling complicated business processes? What are pitfals, what could be better.
If I duplicated some other thread and there are some answers to my question please provide me with links because I didn't find them.
Short answer: yes, this could be a very good idea (and one I have implemented in one form or another a couple of times).
A good starting point for this type of approach are the posts by Davy Brion on what he calls the request/response layer. He consolidated his initial ideas & thoughts into a very usable OSS project called Agatha, which I am proposing at a customer site as I write this.
This is exactly what we're doing here where I work. It works great and is easy for all the developers to understand, and really easy to wire up new methods/class/etc.
Ok,
this is a more general "ugly critters in the corner" question. I am planning to start a project on WCF and PRISM. I have been playing around with PRISM some time know, and must say, I like it. Solid foundation for applications with nice possibilities to grow.
Now I want to incorporate WCF and build a distributed application, with one part on a server and two on the clients. It could be even the same machine, or not, depending on the scenario.
My idea is now to take the event concept from PRISM and extend it "over the wire" using WCF and callbacks, like described here WCF AlarmClock Callback Example.
I created a small picture to illustrate the idea (mainly for me), perhaps this makes things a little more clear:
The grey arrows stand for "using lib". The WCF-Event-Base meaning normal PRISM events, where the publish method is called "over the wire".
There are a few questions which come to mind:
Are there any existing known examples for such things?
What will be the best way to "raise" events over the wire?
Any possible problems with this concept (the ugly critters mentioned earlier)
Regarding the second question, I currently think about raising the events using a string (the type of the concrete event I want to raise) and the payload as argument. Something like public void RaiseEvent(string eventType, object eventPayload){} The payload needs to be serializeable, perhaps I even include a hashcheck. (Meaning if I raise e.g. an event with a picture as argument 10 times, I only transfer the picture once, afterwards using the hash to let the server use the buffer when publish)...
Ok, I think you get the idea. This "thing" should behave like a giant single application, using a kind of WCF_EventAggregator instead of the normal PRISM IEventAggregator. (wow, while writing I just got the idea to "simply" extend the IEventAggregator, have to think about this)...
Why do I write this? Well, for feedback mainly, and to sort my thoughts. So comments welcome, perhaps anything I should be "careful" about?
Chris
[EDITS]
Client distribution
There should be an undefined number of client, the server should not be aware of clients. The server itself can be a client to itself, raising strongly typed PRISM events in other parts of the source code.
The main difference between a "client" and a "server" is the actual implementation of the WCF_PRISM connector, see next chapter...
Client Event raising (PRISM feature)
In PRISM, to raise simple events you do NOT even need a reference to a service interface. The IEventAggregator can be obtained via dependency injection, providing an instance of the desired event (e.g. WeatherChangedEvent). This event can be raised by simply calling eventInstance.Publish(23) because the event is implemented as public class WeatherChangedEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<int>
WCF - PRISM Connector
As simple as raising events is subscribing to events. Every module can subsribe to events using the same technique, obtaining a reference and using Subscribe to attach to this event.
Here is now where the "magic" should happen. The clients will include a prism module responsible for connecting PRISM events to "wcf message sends". It will basically subsribe to all available events in the solution (they are all defined in the infrastructure module anyway) and send out a WCF message in case an event is raised.
The difference between a SERVER and a CLIENT is the implementation of this module. There needs to be a slight difference because of two things.
The WCF setup settings
The flow of events to prevent an infinite loop
The event flow will be (example)
Client obtain ref to WeatherChangedEvent
wChanged.Publish(27) --> normal PRISM event raising
WCF_PRISM module is subscribed to event and
send this event to the server
Server internally gets instance of WeatherChangedEvent and publishes
Server calls back to all clients raising their WeatherChangedEvent
Open Points
The obvious point is preventing a loop. If the server would raise the event in ALL clients, the clients would call back to the server, raising the event again, and so on... So there needs to be a difference between an event caused locally (which means I have to send it to the server) and a "server caused event" which means I do not have to send it to the server.
Also, if a client has initiated the event itself, it does not need to be called by the server, because the event has already be raised (in the client itself, point 2).
All this special behaviour will be encapsulated in the WCF event raiser module, invisible from the rest of the app. I have to think about "how to know if event already published", perhaps a GUID or something like this would be a good idea.
And now the second big question, what was I was aiming at when telling about "strings" earlier. I do not want to write a new service interface definition every time I add an event. Most events in PRISM are defined by one line, especially during development I do not want to update the WCF_Event_Raising_Module each time I add an event.
I thought about sending the events directly when calling WCF, e.g. using a function with a signature like:
public void RaiseEvent(EventBase e, object[] args)
The problem is, I do not really know if I can serialize PRISM events that easy. They all derive from EventBase, but I have to check this... For that reason, I had the idea to use the type (as string), because I know the server shares the infrastructure module and can obtain its own instance of the event (no need to send it over the wire, only the arg)
So far till here, I will keep the question open for more feedback. Main new "insight" I just got: Have to think about the recursion / infite loop problem.
Btw. if anybody is completely confused by all this event talk, give PRISM a try. You will love it, even if you only use DI and Events (RegionManager e.g. is not my favorite)
Chris
[END EDIT 1]
This is a very interesting approach. I would say only two things here:
You are really asking for trouble if you use strings and object parameters. Strongly typed EventAggregator events (inheriting from CompositeEvent) are the way to go here. The maintainability will go way up if you do this.
Your model for your WCF -> EventAggregator should consider everything to and from the EventAggregator as an "event" and everything to/from the WCF services as "messages". What you should really consider is that you are essentially translating a EventAggregator event to a message, rather than asking the question "how do I raise WCF events".
I think what you are doing is feasible. Looking at your implementation I really like how you are thinking about it.
Slight Alternative (w/ strong typing)
I wanted to throw a little something out there and see what you thought about it... maybe it will influence your design slightly. Specifically this is meant to address my first point above and go even further with the strong-typing.
Have you considered having EventAggregator-backed implementations of your service interface? Let's say in your example you have an IWeatherService WCF service that you are working with. Currently, as I understand it, your usage will look something like this:
Client uses the WCF Event Client library and calls RaiseEvent("ChangeWeather", Weather.Sunny);
The WCF Event Client library translates this into the appropriate call to the WCF service waiting to receive this message, using the IWeatherService channel interface to do so. Probably with a big nasty switch statement based on the name of the method call.
Why not modify this slightly. Make IWeatherService a shared contract among all of the servers and clients. The servers will have the actual implementation, obviously, but the clients will have EventAggregator-backed implementations that go to a central broker that queues and sends messages to servers.
Write an EventAggregator-backed implementation of the IWeatherService that raises events to be received by a central message broker and throw that implementation in your container for clients to use.
public ClientWeatherService : IWeatherService
{
IEventAggregator _aggregator;
public ClientWeatherService(IEventAggregator aggregator)
{
_aggregator = aggregator;
}
public void ChangeWeather(Weather weather)
{
ChangeWeatherEvent cwEvent = _aggregator.GetEvent<ChangeWeatherEvent>();
cwEvent.Publish(weather);
}
}
From there, instead of using your "WCF Event Client Library" directly, they use the IWeatherService directly, not knowing that it doesn't call the actual service.
public MyWeatherViewModel : ViewModel
{
IWeatherService _weatherService;
public MyWeatherViewModel(IWeatherService weatherService)
{
_weatherService = weatherService;
}
}
Then, you'd have some event handler setup to make the WCF calls to the real service, but now you have the benefit of strong-typing from the clients.
Just a thought.
I really like this type of question. I wish more people would ask this kind of thing on Stackoverflow. Gets the brain moving in the morning :)
It seems like a complicated approach to the problem.
Are you raising the event from the Client application, or raising the events from the service using the callback contract? or both?
I would approach this with a simple service class in the client. It can implement the Callback contract, and for each callback method it can just raise a Prism event locally to any subscribers in the client. If you need to raise events that are handled by the service, then the service class can subscribe to those events and call the wcf service.
All you need really is a class that abstracts the details of the wcf service away from the client, and exposes it's interface through Prism events.
I personally wouldn't want to modify / extend the infrastructure component and create a dependency on the concrete wcf service.