I have a silverlight application that is like a portal where user-defined widgets will be calling wcf services. Since these components could be quite chatty I would like to hijack the service calls and have them flow through a single client proxy that could throttle, potentially cache results, etc.
So the idea would be to have the dispatch in the client proxy simply call another client proxy (the master) rather than going over the wire. At least I think that's what I want. The master would return an asyncresult and service the request at its discretion or perhaps return some cached data.
Do the appropriate wcf extension points for something like this exist in silverlight? Is it even possible to accomplish this without using runtime code generation/compilation? I'm a WCF n00b so any help would be greatly appreciated.
I do not think that it is possible to hijack the service calls as you describe. You may get thread problems as you wait collecting the calls.
What may work, is if you had a process that asked each widgit if it had any calls it wanted to make, collected all relevant information, made a single call to the server, then updated the widgits with the results.
I suspect that this opimisation is more work than it is worth. WCF calls from Silverlight are async.
Silverlight WCF Proxy async only?
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 implement a WCF service that responds immediately to the caller, but queues up an asynchronous job to be handled later. What is the best way to go about doing this? I've read the MSDN article on how to implement an asynchronous service operation, but that solution seems to still require the task to finish before responding to the caller.
There are many ways to accomplish this depending what you want to do and what technologies you are using (e.g. Unless you are using silverlight, you may not need to have your app call the service asynchronously) The most straight forward way to achieve your goal would be to have your service method start up a thread to perform the bulk of the processing and return immediately.
Another would be to create some kind of request (e.g. Create an entry in a datastore of some kind) and return. Another process (e.g. A windows service, etc.) could then pick up the request and perform the processing.
Any WCF service can be made asynchronous -
One of the nice things about WCF is you can write a service synchronously. When you add a ServiceReference in the client, you have the option of generating asynchronous methods.
This will automatically make the service call asynchronous. The service will return when it's done, but the client will get two methods - BeginXXX and EndXXX, as well as XXXAsync + an XXXCompleted event, either of which allows for completely asynchronous operation.
I have asp.net site where I call my WCF service using jQuery.
Sometimes the WCF service must have an ability to ask user with confirmation smth and depend on user choice either continue or cancel working
does callback help me here?
or any other idea appreciated!
Callback contracts won't work in this scenario, since they're mostly for duplex communication, and there's no duplex on WebHttpBinding (there's a solution for a polling duplex scenario in Silverlight, and I've seen one implementation in javascript which uses it, but that's likely way too complex for your scenario).
What you can do is to split the operation in two. The first one would "start" the operation and return an identifier and some additional information to tell the client whether the operation will be just completed, or whether additional information is needed. In the former case, the client can then call the second operation, passing the identifier to get the result. In the second one, the client would again make the call, but passing the additional information required for the operation to complete (or to be cancelled).
Your architecture is wrong. Why:
Service cannot callback client's browser. Real callback over HTTP works like reverse communication - client is hosting service called by the client. Client in your case is browser - how do you want to host service in the browser? How do you want to open port for incoming communication from the browser? Solutions using "callback like" functionality are based on pooling the service. You can use JavaScript timer and implement your own pooling mechanism.
Client browser cannot initiate distributed transaction so you cannot start transaction on the client. You cannot also use server side transaction over multiple operations because it requires per-session instancing which in turn requires sessinoful channel.
WCF JSON/REST services don't support HTTP callback (duplex communication).
WCF JSON/REST services don't build pooling solution for you - you must do it yourselves
WCF JSON/REST services don't support distributed transactions
WCF JSON/REST services don't support sessionful channels / server side sessions
That was technical aspect of your solution.
Your solution looks more like scenario for the Workflow service where you start the workflow and it runs till some point where it waits for the user input. Until the input is provided the workflow can be persisted to the database so generally user can provide the input several days later. When the input is provided the service can continue. Starting the service and providing each needed input is modelled as separate operation called from the client. This is not usual scenario for something called from JavaScript but it should be possible because you can write custom WebHttpContextBinding to support workflows. It will still not achieve the situation where user will be automatically asked for something - that is your responsibility to find when the popup should appear and handle it.
If you leave standard WCF world you can check solutions like COMET which provides AJAX push/callback.
In the project I'm currently working we're using WCF.
Company policy forces us to use async calls and the reason should be security.
I've asked why this is so much more secure but I don't get clear answers.
Can someone explain why this is so much secure?
They are not. The same security (authentication, encryption) mechanisms and considerations apply whether a call blocks until it gets a response or it uses a callback.
The only way someone may be confused into thinking that asynch calls are more "safe/secure", is they think that unhandled WCF exceptions will not bring down the main thread if they are asynchronous, as they will be raised inside the callback.
In this case, I would advice extreme caution when approaching the owner of this policy to avoid career-limiting consequences. Some people can get emotionally attached to their policies.
There is no point why an async call will be more secure than a sync call. I think you should talk to the owner of the policy for the same.
No they are not more or less secure than synchronous calls. The only difference is the client waits for a response on synchronous calls, whereas on async it is notified of a response.
Are they coming from the angle that synchronous calls leave the connection open longer or something?
Just exposing a WCF operation using an async signature (BeginBlah/EndBlah) doesn't actually affect the exposed operation at all. When you view the meta data, an operation like
[OperationContract(AsyncPattern=true)]
IAsyncResult BeginSomething(AsyncCallback, object)
void EndSomething(IAsyncResult)
...actually still ends up being represented as an operation called 'Something'. And actually this is one of the nice things about WCF: the client and server can differ in whether they choose to implement/consume an operation syncronously.
So if you are using generating WCF proxies (eg through Add Service Reference) then you will get syncronous versions of each operation whether they are implemented asyncronously or not unless you tick the little checkbox to generate the async overloads. And when you do you then get async versions of operations that might only be declared syncronously on the server.
All WCF is doing is, on both the client and server, giving you a choice about your threading model: do you want WCF to wait for the result, or are you going to signal it that you've finished. How the actual transport connection is managed is - to the best of my knowlege - totally unaffected. eg: For a NetTcpBinding the socket still stays open for the duration of the call, either way.
So, to get to the point, I really struggle to imagine how this could possibly make any difference to the security envelope of a WCF service. If a service is exposed using an async pattern, and is genuinely implemented in an async way (async for outbound IO, or queues work via the thread pool or something) then there's probably an argument that it would be harder to DOS the service (by exhausting the pool of WCF IO threads), but that'd be about it.
See Syncronous and Asyncronous Operations in MSDN
NB: If you are sharing the contract interface between the client and server then obviously the syncronisity of the two ends match (because they are both using the same interface type), but that's just a limitation of using a shared interface. If you made another equivilent interface, differing only by the async pattern, you could still create a ChannelFactory against it just fine.
I agree with the other answers - definitely not more secure.
Fire up Fiddler and watch a synchronous request vs. an asynchronous request. You'll basically see the same type of traffic (although the sync may send and receive more data since it's probably a postback). But you can intercept both of those requests, manipulate them, and resend them and cause havoc on your server.
Fiddler's a great tool, by the way. It's an eye-opener in terms of what kind of data and how much data you're sending to the server.
I have found myself responsible for carrying on the development of a system which I did not originally design and can't ask the original designers why certain design decisions were taken, as they are no longer here. I am a junior developer on design issues so didn't really know what to ask when I started on the project which was my first SOA / WCF project.
The system has 7 WCF services, will grow to 9, each self-hosted in a seperate console app/windows service. All of them are single instance and single threaded. All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method. When client services want to connect to another service, they first call Register(), then if successful they do all the rest of their communication with Send(). We have a DataContract that has an enum MessageType and a Content propety which can contain other DataContract "payloads." What the service does with the message is determined by the enum MessageType...everything comes through the Send() method and then gets routed to a switch statement...I suspect this is unusual
Register() and Send() are actually OneWay and Async...ALL results from services are returned to client services by a WCF CallbackContract. I believe that the reson for using CallbackContracts is to facilitate the Publish-Subscribe model we are using. The problem is not all of our communication fits publish-subscribe and using CallbackContracts means we have to include source details in returned result messages so clients can work out what the returned results were originally for...again clients have a switch statements to work out what to do with messages arriving from services based on the MessageType (and other embedded details).
In terms of topology: the services form "nodes" in a graph. Each service has hardcoded a list of other services it must connect to when it starts, and wont allow client services to "Register" with it until is has made all of the connections it needs. As an example, we have a LoggingService and a DataAccessService. The DataAccessSevice is a client of the LoggingService and so the DataAccess service will attempt to Register with the LoggingService when it starts. Until it can successfully Register the DataAccess service will not allow any clients to Register with it. The result is that when the system is fired up as a whole the services start up in a cascadeing manner. I don't see this as an issue, but is this unusual?
To make matters more complex, one of the systems requirements is that services or "nodes" do not need to be directly registered with one another in order to send messages to one another, but can communicate via indirect links. For example, say we have 3 services A, B and C connected in a chain, A can send a message to C via B...using 2 hops.
I was actually tasked with this and wrote the routing system, it was fun, but the lead left before I could ask why it was really needed. As far as I can see, there is no reason why services cannot just connect direct to the other services they need. Whats more I had to write a reliability system on top of everything as the requirement was to have reliable messaging across nodes in the system, wheras with simple point-to-point links WCF reliabily does the job.
Prior to this project I had only worked on winforms desktop apps for 3 years, do didn't know any better. My suspicions are things are overcomplicated with this project: I guess to summarise, my questions are:
1) Is this idea of a graph topology with messages hopping over indirect links unusual? Why not just connect services directly to the services that they need to access (which in reality is what we do anyway...I dont think we have any messages hopping)?
2) Is exposing just 2 methods in the OperationContract and using the a MessageType enum to determine what the message is for/what to do with it unusual? Shouldnt a WCF service expose lots of methods with specific purposes instead and the client chooses what methods it wants to call?
3) Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
4) Is the idea of a service not allowing client services to connect to it (Register) until it has connected to all of its services (to which it is a client) a sound design? I think this is the only design aspect I agree with, I mean the DataAccessService should not accept clients until it has a connection with the logging service.
I have so many WCF questions, more will come in later threads. Thanks in advance.
Well, the whole things seems a bit odd, agreed.
All of them are single instance and
single threaded.
That's definitely going to come back and cause massive performance headaches - guaranteed. I don't understand why anyone would want to write a singleton WCF service to begin with (except for a few edge cases, where it does make sense), and if you do have a singleton WCF service, to get any decent performance, it must be multi-threaded (which is tricky programming, and is why I almost always advise against it).
All services have the same
OperationContract: they expose a
Register() and Send() method.
That's rather odd, too. So anyone calling will first .Register(), and then call .Send() with different parameters several times?? Funny design, really.... The SOA assumption is that you design your services to be the model of a set of functionality you want to expose to the outside world, e.g. your CustomerService might have methods like GetCustomerByID, GetAllCustomersByCountry, etc. methods - depending on what you need.
Having just a single Send() method with parameters which define what is being done seems a bit.... unusual and not very intuitive / clear.
Is this idea of a graph topology with
messages hopping over indirect links
unusual?
Not necessarily. It can make sense to expose just a single interface to the outside world, and then use some internal backend services to do the actual work. .NET 4 will actually introduce a RoutingService in WCF which makes these kind of scenarios easier. I don't think this is a big no-no.
Is doing all communication back to a
client via CallbackContracts unusual.
Yes, unusual, fragile, messy - if you can ever do without it - go for it. If you have mostly simple calls, like GetCustomerByID - make those a standard Request/Response call - the client requests something (by supplying a Customer ID) and gets back a Customer object as a return value. Much much simpler!
If you do have long-running service calls, that might take minutes or more to complete - then you might consider One-Way calls which just deposit a request into a queue, and that request gets handled later on. Typically, here, you can either deposit the answer into a response queue which the client then checks, or you can have two additional service methods which give you the status of a request (is it done yet?) and a second method to retrieve the result(s) of that request.
Hope that helps to get you started !
All services have the same OperationContract: they expose a Register() and Send() method.
Your design seems unusual at some parts specially exposing only two operations. I haven't worked with WCF, we use Java. But based on my understanding the whole purpose of Web Services is to expose Operations that your partners can utilise.
Having only two Operations looks like odd design to me. You generally expose your API using WSDL. In this case the WSDL would add nothing of value to the partners, unless you have lot of documentation. Generally the operation name should be self-explanatory. Right now your system cannot be used by partners without having internal knowledge.
Is doing all communication back to a client via CallbackContracts unusual. Surely sync or asyc request-response is simpler.
Agree with you. Async should only be used for long running processes. Async adds the overhead of correlation.