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.
Related
I have a service which should begin when the server starts, and continue running for the entirety of the server lifetime. I would like to be able to manage the service (querying, modifying runtime options, etc) with a web frontend. While researching the best way to accomplish this, I came across two options: a scoped service with a singleton lifetime, and a backgroundservice/IHostedService. What are the differences between the two options, and when should one be used over the other?
Neither of those is actually a thing. The closest is the concept of a singleton and hosted services. A hosted service is a class that implements IHostedService and pretty much fits the bill of what you're looking for in that it will start at app startup and stop at app shutdown. ASP.NET Core 3.0 added a BackgroundService class, which is just an implementation of IHostedService with a lot of the cruft of defining what happens as start/stop/etc. covered. In practice, it usually makes more sense to inherit from BackgroundService, but you can also just implement IHostedService directly yourself.
"Singleton" is just a lifetime. All hosted services are registered with a singleton lifetime, but just because something is a singleton, doesn't mean it does anything special. You could, for example, register some random class as a singleton, and whenever it is injected, you'll always get the same instance. However, it will not do anything at startup or shutdown on its own.
Long and short, there are no differing options here. You're looking for a hosted service. That said, it only solves part of what you're looking for, in that it will "run" while the app is running. However, you can't really connect to it, or interact with it directly. It's not like a Web Api or something; it isn't exposed for HTTP requests, for example.
To "manage" it, you would have to expose some sort of API that would then interact with the service through code. For example, the docs provide an example of a queued background service that processes things added to the queue. However, to queue something, you would need to do something like create an API endpoint, inject the queue, and then use code to add a new item to the queue. Then, the actual hosted service would eventually pop that task from the queue and work on it.
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.
I've read the NSXPC* docs, which advise making the vended service as stateless as possible. It's a good idea, at least to the docs and examples I've read, since the service and the calling app see each other as singletons and only one instance of the service runs at a time. This means that the methods are essentially non-member functions (to use a C++ term).
Why do I want to get around this? I want to put the network code into a XPC. Since the XPC will be working with a GUI app, which will have multiple windows, I need to support multiple simultaneous connections. That doesn't work with singletons, at least directly.
The network API is C-based, with the main state type a pointer to a custom struct. So why don't we do something similar:
Have the creation function return a value type, like NSUUID or something. (Passing a pointer across processes would be a bad idea.)
In the service, create a NSDictionary (or std::map or whatever) mapping between the NSUUID and the API C-pointer.
The various service APIs take the UUID and convert it to the C-pointer to use the network API.
Aside: Since the token is random, if the XPC service crashes, the main app will have a token that's useless after the XPC is restarted. Maybe I should a URL (which would have all the information to restart) instead. But then we get potential conflicts if two connections happen to be to the same server. Maybe I can combine the ideas with the token being a URL/UUID pair. (The UUID value would move from being returned by the service to supplied by the main app.)
Would this be a good way to implement state-full XPCs?
You may want to add a method to your service interface which replies with a long-lived proxy object. You can arrange for this to happen by means of a call to -[NSXPCInterface setInterface:forSelector:argumentIndex:ofReply:], passing YES for the last parameter. Details are available here:
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Foundation/Reference/NSXPCInterface_reference/#//apple_ref/occ/instm/NSXPCInterface/setInterface:forSelector:argumentIndex:ofReply:
I am reading Juval Löwy's Programming WCF Sevices. It mentions:
In WCF, we have Context in which we have the instance. By default, the lifetime of the context is the same as that of the instance it hosts. We can have separate lifetimes for both.
WCF also allows a context to exist without an associated instance at all.
Why would we release the instance and keep the context empty?
Coincidentally I recently read the chapter you're probably referring to. In his book Löwy explains why this may be useful. First he writes:
WCF also allows a context to exist without an associated instance at all. I call this instance management technique context deactivation.
After mentioning this is typically done using an OperationBehavior with a specific ReleaseInstanceMode, he goes on and hints on when you could use this:
You typically apply instance deactivation on some but not all service methods, or with different values on different methods. [...] The reason you typically apply it sporadically is that if you were to apply it uniformly, you would end up with a per-call-like service, in which case you might as well have configured the service as per-call.
So you can use this "deactivation" to ensure only certain methods in a service with sessions behave as if they were part of a per-call service. The abovementioned MSDN article also explains this, in a different wording:
Use the ReleaseInstanceMode property to specify when WCF recycles a service object in the course of executing a method. The default behavior is to recycle a service object according to the InstanceContextMode value. Setting the ReleaseInstanceMode property changes that default behavior. In transaction scenarios, the ReleaseInstanceMode property is often used to ensure that old data associated with the service object is cleaned up prior to processing a method call.
Disconnecting the context from the instance makes sense when:
Instance creation is customized/extended. For example if you are creating your service instance with a custom IInstanceProvider with a dependency injection library (for example Unity) you might want a Unity lifetime manager to handle the service instance lifetime.
Some but not all operations result in an expensive service instance to be invalidated. For example: The service object loads a large expense resource as a part of creation. If the service operations called by the client modify or invalidate the resource, it needs to be disposed and reloaded for the next caller. If the operations don’t invalidate the resource the service instance can be reused by the next caller. (In almost all cases there’s a better way to solve this problem, but WCF allows it).
I’m sure there are additional use cases.
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.