i have an android application that handles a sql-lite database and i need to to beable save a unique PendingIntent, and a unique long for every rowId in the database. The PendingIntent and long have to be reachable from all the applications classes so i can easily 1)retrieve them 2)cancel it(the PendingIntent) and 3)change them from anywhere is the applications code.
i am sure someone can help! thankyou :)
PS. if it makes any difference i have 2 sql databases that both need this.
I would suggest:
You have a service that gets loaded on startup with BOOT_COMPLETED event.
The service polls the db and creates a map of special objects, which contain PendingIntent, your unique long and whatever more.
From the activity you bind to a service and ask it to do somethings, would it be returning an intent, or creating new or whatever.
Application class can know about the service from the activity, you have binded to the service.
I'm not sure the service is necessary here. If your work with pending intents begins from the concreate activity, you can simplify this solution with using Singleton pattern for the class, which contains the pending intents data.
Related
I read some articles about this and I get to know how to use Transient, Scoped, and Singleton but I am confused when to use one of these.
What I am understood:
Singleton: In situation when you need to store number of employees then you can create singleton cause every time you create new employee then it will increment the number so in that situation you need singleton.
Scoped: For example you are playing game in which number of life is 5 and then you need to decrease the number when player's game over. And in every new time you need new instance because every new time you need number of life is 5.
Transient: when to use Transient??
Please correct me if I am wrong.
And give the better example of all of them if possible.
As far as I know, the Singleton is normally used for a global single instance. For example, you will have an image store service you could have a service to load images from a given location and keeps them in memory for future use.
A scoped lifetime indicates that services are created once per client request. Normally we will use this for sql connection. It means it will create and dispose the sql connection per request.
A transient lifetime services are created each time they're requested from the service container. For example, during one request you use httpclient service to call other web api request multiple times, but the web api endpoint is different. At that time you will register the httpclient service as transient. That means each time when you call the httpclient service it will create a new httpclient to send the request not used the same one .
Note, Microsoft provides the recommendations here and here.
When designing services for dependency injection:
Avoid stateful, static classes and members. Avoid creating global state by designing apps to use singleton services instead.
Avoid direct instantiation of dependent classes within services. Direct instantiation couples the code to a particular implementation.
Make services small, well-factored, and easily tested.
I have a MVC 6 application on which I need to connect to a different database (i.e. physical file but same schema) depending on who is accessing to it.
That is: each customer of the web application will have it's data isolated in an SQL database (on Azure, with different performances, price levels, etc.) but all those databases will share the same relational schema and of course, the Entity Framework context class.
var cadConexion = #"Server=(localdb)\mssqllocaldb;Database=DBforCustomer1;Trusted_Connection=True;";
services.AddEntityFramework().AddSqlServer().AddDbContext<DAL.ContextoBD>(options => options.UseSqlServer(cadConexion));
The problem is that if I register the service this way I've tied it to a concrete database for a concrete customer, and I don't know if I can change latter when the middleware execution starts (this would be a good point as I can know then who is ringing at the door).
I know I can construct the Database Context passing the connection string as a parameter but this would imply that I should be creating the Database Context at runtime (early in the pipeline) for every request adn I don't know if this could be potentially unefficient or a bad practice. Furthermore I think this way I can't register the Database Context as a service for injecting it on my controllers...
What is the correct approach for this? Anybody has a similar configuration working on production?
Thanks in advance
I would have preferred not to answer my own question, but I feel that I must offer guidance to those with a similar problem, after a long and deep research over internet so I can save them a lot of time testing multi-connection scenarios, wich is quite laborious...
I've finally used a (very recent) feature and APIs of Azure called "Elastic Database Tools" wich, to be concise, is a set of tools from Microsoft aimed to address this concrete problem, specially for SaaS (software as a service) scenarios (as mine is).
Here is a good link to start with:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/sql-database-elastic-scale-get-started/
Good luck with your projects!
First of all, I do not recommend swapping connection strings per request.
But that's not the question. You can do this. You will need to pass your DbContext a new connection string.
.AddDbContext caches the connection string in the dependency injection container, so you cannot use DI to make this scenario work. Instead, you will need to instantiate your DbContext yourself and pass it a new connection string.
I have an application which uses back ground worker(bw) and tasks.
I have one singleton instance in this app..which contains most of the common info about that instance of application. I have different agents listed in my app..and if I switch to different agent, i have to build entire data structure (models/viewmodels/DTOs)
Lets say, for agent "a" one of the bw is spawned...and it uses the above mentioned singleton instance...
Soon I switch to agent "b"...so in my app, i create new data structure for aganet "b". But uses the same singleton instance.
If I change any property in this singleton instance...there is a chance that the new value will be used by bw spawned for agent "a".
Can somebody help me to overcome this situation?
Can I have different singleton instance for different agents ?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
EDIT : Any different approach if you can tell me it would be great.
A singleton, by definition, can only exist once. If you want different settings for each user, you will need to use a different architecture. See http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/singleton for more information about singletons.
According to this post, I am using a data context per call, so in each method of my WCF service, I use a using block to create a new data context.
But I have some doubts in the form to work in this way.
For example, I use a method getAllCLients() from my repository to get all the clients of the data base, then the service send to the client that call the method a list with all the clients. Then the user modify the information of some of them, three for example. The modify client perhaps I can add to a list that have the modified clients.
When I want to update this three clients, I can call a method updateClients() which receive a list of modified clients. How I am use a new data context per each method, in updateCients() get a new dataContext, without entities, so I think that I have to follow this steps:
1.- create a new data context which has the clients that I want to update. SO I need to specified the conditions for that. This is an extra operation (I get the clients before with the getAllClients() method), so I need to get again the clients.
2.- go throw the clients collection of the DBSet (I use EF 4.1) and change the information. This makes me to go throw the list that I receive from the client application too. So I must to go throw two lists. This needs resources.
3.- save the changes. This is needed anyway, so it has no required more work.
There is any way to make the step 2 easily? exist some method in dataContext to pass the values from my modified client to the client in the data context? I use POCO entities, perhaps it exists an easy way to do that.
Other question is about concurrency. If I control the concurrency with pesimistic concurrency that allow EF (with a timestamp field for example), is it better to call the updateClient() one for each client or better to pass a list with all the clients? I mean that if I use a list as parameter, if there is a concurrency issue with one client,the second for example, the first client will be update correctly, but the second not and the third neither. How can I notify to the user that there is problems with some clients?
To resume, I would like to know the best way to make updates when I have a short life datacontext.
Thanks.
Daimroc.
The service is disconnected scenario so when your client passes backs modified records you just need to process them as modified. You don't need to load all records from database for that.
public void SaveClients(List<Client> modifiedClients)
{
using (var context = new Context())
{
modifiedClients.ForEach(c =>
{
context.Entry(c).State = EntityState.Modified;
});
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
If you are using per call service and every service operation needs context you can move your context instancing to service constructor because service instance will live only to server single service call = you don't need using for every call. If you do that don't forget to implement IDisposable on your service to dispose context.
Other question is about concurrency. If I control the concurrency with
pesimistic concurrency that allow EF (with a timestamp field for
example), is it better to call the updateClient() one for each client
or better to pass a list with all the clients?
EF doesn't support pesimistic concurrency out of the box. Using timestamp is optimistic concurrency because it allows others to use the record. Pesimistic concurrency is application logic where other client is not able to select locked record for update.
The concurrency is resolved per record but the problem in this case is transaction. Each call to SaveChanges results in transaction used to process all changes in the database. So if any of your modified records is not up to date you will get concurrency exception and whole transaction is rolled back = no record is updated.
You can still overcome the issue by passing list of modified records to the service (reducing roundtrips between client and service is a best practice) but you can process each record separately by calling SaveChanges for every single record. Anyway this should be very carefully considered because each call to SaveChanges is like separate unit of work - is it really what you want?
Btw. the best practice is to make your service statless. You should avoid maintaining data between service calls and this example really doesn't need it.
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.