In classic ASP.NET I’d persist data extracted from a web service in base class property as follows:
private string m_stringData;
public string _stringData
{ get {
if (m_stringData==null)
{
//fetch data from my web service
m_stringData = ws.FetchData()
}
return m_stringData;
}
}
This way I could simply make reference to _stringData and know that I’d always get the data I was after (maybe sometimes I’d use Session state as a store instead of a private member variable).
In Silverlight with a WCF I might choose to use Isolated Storage as my persistance mechanism, but the service call can't be done like this, because a WCF service has to be called asynchronously.
How can I both invoke the service call and retrieve the response in one method?
Thanks,
Mark
In your method, invoke the service call asynchronously and register a callback that sets a flag. After you have invoked the method, enter a busy/wait loop checking the flag periodically until the flag is set indicating that the data has been returned. The callback should set the backing field for your method and you should be able to return it as soon as you detect the flag has been set indicating success. You'll also need to be concerned about failure. If it's possible to get multiple calls to your method from different threads, you'll also need to use some locking to make your code thread-safe.
EDIT
Actually, the busy/wait loop is probably not the way to go if the web service supports BeginGetData/EndGetData semantics. I had a look at some of my code where I do something similar and I use WaitOne to simply wait on the async result and then retrieve it. If your web service doesn't support this then throw a Thread.Sleep -- say for 50-100ms -- in your wait loop to give time for other processes to execute.
Example from my code:
IAsyncResult asyncResult = null;
try
{
asyncResult = _webService.BeginGetData( searchCriteria, null, null );
if (asyncResult.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne( _timeOut, false ))
{
result = _webService.EndGetData( asyncResult );
}
}
catch (WebException e)
{
...log the error, clean up...
}
Thanks for your help tvanfosson. I followed your code and have also found a pseudo similar solution that meets my needs exactly using a lambda expression:
private string m_stringData;
public string _stringData{
get
{
//if we don't have a list of departments, fetch from WCF
if (m_stringData == null)
{
StringServiceClient client = new StringServiceClient();
client.GetStringCompleted +=
(sender, e) =>
{
m_stringData = e.Result;
};
client.GetStringAsync();
}
return m_stringData;
}
}
EDIT
Oops... actually this doesn't work either :-(
I ended up making the calls Asynchronously and altering my programming logic to use MVVM pattern and more binding.
Related
In my test application I can see messages that were processed with an exception being automatically inserted into the default EasyNetQ_Default_Error_Queue, which is great. I can then successfully dump or requeue these messages using the Hosepipe, which also works fine, but requires dropping down to the command line and calling against both Hosepipe and the RabbitMQ API to purge the queue of retried messages.
So I'm thinking the easiest approach for my application is to simply subscribe to the error queue, so I can re-process them using the same infrastructure. But in EastNetQ, the error queue seems to be special. We need to subscribe using a proper type and routing ID, so I'm not sure what these values should be for the error queue:
bus.Subscribe<WhatShouldThisBe>("and-this", ReprocessErrorMessage);
Can I use the simple API to subscribe to the error queue, or do I need to dig into the advanced API?
If the type of my original message was TestMessage, then I'd like to be able to do something like this:
bus.Subscribe<ErrorMessage<TestMessage>>("???", ReprocessErrorMessage);
where ErrorMessage is a class provided by EasyNetQ to wrap all errors. Is this possible?
You can't use the simple API to subscribe to the error queue because it doesn't follow EasyNetQ queue type naming conventions - maybe that's something that should be fixed ;)
But the Advanced API works fine. You won't get the original message back, but it's easy to get the JSON representation which you could de-serialize yourself quite easily (using Newtonsoft.JSON). Here's an example of what your subscription code should look like:
[Test]
[Explicit("Requires a RabbitMQ server on localhost")]
public void Should_be_able_to_subscribe_to_error_messages()
{
var errorQueueName = new Conventions().ErrorQueueNamingConvention();
var queue = Queue.DeclareDurable(errorQueueName);
var autoResetEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
bus.Advanced.Subscribe<SystemMessages.Error>(queue, (message, info) =>
{
var error = message.Body;
Console.Out.WriteLine("error.DateTime = {0}", error.DateTime);
Console.Out.WriteLine("error.Exception = {0}", error.Exception);
Console.Out.WriteLine("error.Message = {0}", error.Message);
Console.Out.WriteLine("error.RoutingKey = {0}", error.RoutingKey);
autoResetEvent.Set();
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { });
});
autoResetEvent.WaitOne(1000);
}
I had to fix a small bug in the error message writing code in EasyNetQ before this worked, so please get a version >= 0.9.2.73 before trying it out. You can see the code example here
Code that works:
(I took a guess)
The screwyness with the 'foo' is because if I just pass that function HandleErrorMessage2 into the Consume call, it can't figure out that it returns a void and not a Task, so can't figure out which overload to use. (VS 2012)
Assigning to a var makes it happy.
You will want to catch the return value of the call to be able to unsubscribe by disposing the object.
Also note that Someone used a System Object name (Queue) instead of making it a EasyNetQueue or something, so you have to add the using clarification for the compiler, or fully specify it.
using Queue = EasyNetQ.Topology.Queue;
private const string QueueName = "EasyNetQ_Default_Error_Queue";
public static void Should_be_able_to_subscribe_to_error_messages(IBus bus)
{
Action <IMessage<Error>, MessageReceivedInfo> foo = HandleErrorMessage2;
IQueue queue = new Queue(QueueName,false);
bus.Advanced.Consume<Error>(queue, foo);
}
private static void HandleErrorMessage2(IMessage<Error> msg, MessageReceivedInfo info)
{
}
(Note: this is an over-simplified scenario to demonstrate my coding issue.)
I have the following class interface:
public class CustomerService
{
Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> FindCustomersInArea(String areaName);
Task<Customer> GetCustomerByName(String name);
:
}
This is the client-side of a RESTful API which loads a list of Customer objects from the server then exposes methods that allows client code to consume and work against that list.
Both of these methods work against the internal list of Customers retrieved from the server as follows:
private Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> LoadCustomersAsync()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
try
{
// GetAsync returns Task<HttpResponseMessage>
Client.GetAsync(uri).ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.IsCanceled)
{
tcs.SetCanceled();
}
else if (task.IsFaulted)
{
tcs.SetException(task.Exception);
}
else
{
// Convert HttpResponseMessage to desired return type
var response = task.Result;
var list = response.Content.ReadAs<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
tcs.SetResult(list);
}
});
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tcs.SetException(ex);
}
}
The Client class is a custom version of the HttpClient class from the WCF Web API (now ASP.NET Web API) because I am working in Silverlight and they don't have an SL version of their client assemblies.
After all that background, here's my problem:
All of the methods in the CustomerService class use the list returned by the asynchronous LoadCustomersAsync method; therefore, any calls to these methods should wait (asynchronously) until the LoadCustomers method has returned and the appopriate logic executed on the returned list.
I also only want one call made from the client (in LoadCustomers) at a time. So, I need all of the calls to the public methods to wait on the same internal task.
To review, here's what I need to figure out how to accomplish:
Any call to FindCustomersInArea and GetCustomerByName should return a Task that waits for the LoadCustomersAsync method to complete. If LoadCustomersAsync has already returned (and the cached list still valid), then the method may continue immediately.
After LoadCustomersAsync returns, each method has additional logic required to convert the list into the desired return value for the method.
There must only ever be one active call to LoadCustomersAsync (of the GetAsync method within).
If the cached list expires, then subsequent calls will trigger a reload (via LoadCustomersAsync).
Let me know if you need further clarification, but I'm hoping this is a common enough use case that someone can help me work out the logic to get the client working as desired.
Disclaimer: I'm going to assume you're using a singleton instance of your HttpClient subclass. If that's not the case we need only modify slightly what I'm about to tell you.
Yes, this is totally doable. The mechanism we're going to rely on for subsequent calls to LoadCustomersAsync is that if you attach a continuation to a Task, even if that Task completed eons ago, you're continuation will be signaled "immediately" with the task's final state.
Instead of creating/returning a new TaskCompletionSource<T> (TCS) every time from the LoadCustomerAsync method, you would instead have a field on the class that represents the TCS. This will allow your instance to remember the TCS that last represented the call that represented a cache-miss. This TCS's state will be signaled exactly the same as your existing code. You'll add the knowledge of whether or not the data has expired as another field which, combined with whether the TCS is currently null or not, will be the trigger for whether or not you actually go out and load the data again.
Ok, enough talk, it'll probably make a lot more sense if you see it.
The Code
public class CustomerService
{
// Your cache timeout (using 15mins as example, can load from config or wherever)
private static readonly TimeSpan CustomersCacheTimeout = new TimeSpan(0, 15, 0);
// A lock object used to provide thread safety
private object loadCustomersLock = new object();
private TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>> loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource;
private DateTime loadCustomersLastCacheTime = DateTime.MinValue;
private Task<IEnumerable<Customer>> LoadCustomersAsync()
{
lock(this.loadCustomersLock)
{
bool needToLoadCustomers = this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource == null
||
(this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task.IsFaulted || this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task.IsCanceled)
||
DateTime.Now - this.loadCustomersLastCacheTime.Value > CustomersService.CustomersCacheTimeout;
if(needToLoadCustomers)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
try
{
// GetAsync returns Task<HttpResponseMessage>
Client.GetAsync(uri).ContinueWith(antecedent =>
{
if(antecedent.IsCanceled)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetCanceled();
}
else if(antecedent.IsFaulted)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetException(antecedent.Exception);
}
else
{
// Convert HttpResponseMessage to desired return type
var response = antecedent.Result;
var list = response.Content.ReadAs<IEnumerable<Customer>>();
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetResult(list);
// Record the last cache time
this.loadCustomersLastCacheTime = DateTime.Now;
}
});
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.SetException(ex);
}
}
}
}
return this.loadCustomersTaskCompletionSource.Task;
}
Scenarios where the customers aren't loaded:
If it's the first call, the TCS will be null so the TCS will be created and customers fetched.
If the previous call faulted or was canceled, a new TCS will be created and the customers fetched.
If the cache timeout has expired, a new TCS will be created and the customers fetched.
Scenarios where the customers are loading/loaded:
If the customers are in the process of loading, the existing TCS's Task will be returned and any continuations added to the task using ContinueWith will be executed once the TCS has been signaled.
If the customers are already loaded, the existing TCS's Task will be returned and any continuations added to the task using ContinueWith will be executed as soon as the scheduler sees fit.
NOTE: I used a coarse grained locking approach here and you could theoretically improve performance with a reader/writer implementation, but it would probably be a micro-optimization in your case.
I think you should change the way you call Client.GetAsync(uri). Do it roughly like this:
Lazy<Task> getAsyncLazy = new Lazy<Task>(() => Client.GetAsync(uri));
And in your LoadCustomersAsync method you write:
getAsyncLazy.Value.ContinueWith(task => ...
This will ensure that GetAsync only gets called once and that everyone interested in its result will receive the same task.
I'm trying to find an elegant way to retry an operation when a WCF channel is in faulted state. I've tried using the Policy Injection AB to reconnect and retry the operation when a faulted state exception occurs on first call, but the PolicyInjection.Wrap method doesn't seem to like wrapping the TransparentProxy objects (proxy returned from ChannelFactory.CreateChannel).
Is there any other mechanism I could try or how could I try get the PIAB solution working correctly - any links, examples, etc. would be greatly appreciated.
Here is the code I was using that was failing:
var channelFactory = new ChannelFactory(endpointConfigurationName);
var proxy = channelFactory.CreateChannel(...);
proxy = PolicyInjection.Wrap<IService>(proxy);
Thank you.
I would rather use callback functions, something like this:
private SomeServiceClient proxy;
//This method invokes a service method and recreates the proxy if it's in a faulted state
private void TryInvoke(Action<SomeServiceClient> action)
{
try
{
action(this.proxy);
}
catch (FaultException fe)
{
if (proxy.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
{
this.proxy.Abort();
this.proxy = new SomeServiceClient();
//Probably, there is a better way than recursion
TryInvoke(action);
}
}
}
//Any real method
private void Connect(Action<UserModel> callback)
{
TryInvoke(sc => callback(sc.Connect()));
}
And in your code you should call
ServiceProxy.Instance.Connect(user => MessageBox.Show(user.Name));
instead of
var user = ServiceProxy.Instance.Connect();
MessageBox.Show(user.Name);
Although my code uses proxy-class approach, you can write a similar code with Channels.
Thank you so much for your reply. What I ended up doing was creating a decorator type class that implemented the interface of my service, which then just wrapped the transparent proxy generated by the ChannelFactory. I was then able to use the Policy Injection Application Block to create a layer on top of this that would inject code into each operation call that would try the operation, and if a CommunicationObjectFaultedException occurred, would abort the channel, recreate it and retry the operation. It's working great now - although it works great, the only downside though is the wrapper class mentioned having to implement every service operation, but this was the only way I could use the PIAB as this made sense for me for in case I did find a way in future, it was easy enough to change just using interfaces.
I have a problem with calling WCF Service methods with Silverlight 3.
private bool usr_OK = false;
clientService.CheckUserMailAsync(this.mailTF.Text);
if (usr_OK == true)
{ isValidationOK = true; }
else { isValidationOK = false; MessageBox.Show("User already exists.", "User registered succes!", MessageBoxButton.OK); }
CheckUserMail should change usr_OK parameter. However it runs in other thread and it does not change the usr_OK param before IF block begins. I've tried thread.join byt the application freezed and i do not know what to do else. Please help me...how can i wait for WCF method to return param usr_OK.
The most direct answer to your question: Don't block on WCF calls. They make it hard for a reason. There, quite likely, is no way to block if you even tried... but don't.
Elaboration: The mode of operation for Silverlight is Asyncronicity. This is something you have to get used to when you are developing in Silverlight. They make it really hard for you to block on anything.
This is a good thing, in my opinion. When you block on the result of something like a WCF service call, you are ultimately blocking the user thread. It does require some getting used to on the developer's part, but again... get used to it.
Lets say you have code that you want to go like this (Synchronous) :
var theResult = clientService.DoSomething(foo);
Process(theResult);
The way to re-write it would be like this (Asynchronous) :
clientService.DoSomethingCompleted += (sender, args) => Process(args.Result);
clientService.DoSomethingAsync(foo);
Taking it a step further, I like to abstract my services out as interfaces (so I can replace them when testing, or running in stand-alone mode while developing). I take that as an opportunity to create an interface that looks like this:
public interface IMyService
{
void DoSomething(string input, Action<string> whenComplete);
}
I implement the service like the async code above, and then when I call it, it is very clean and simple:
myService.DoSomething(foo, Process);
You will find that much of your system will morph into an asynchronous code base, but it might require you to re-adjust your expectations.
Bind the code that checks the usr_OK variable in the event handler for CheckUserMailCompletedEvent
clientService.CheckUserMailCompleted += new EventHandler<CheckUserMailCompletedEventArgs> (clientService_CheckUserMailCompleted);
clientService.CheckUserMailAsync(this.mailTF.Text);
void clientService_CheckUserMailCompleted(object sender, CheckUserMailCompletedEventArgs e) {
if (usr_OK == true) {
isValidationOK = true;
}
else {
isValidationOK = false;
MessageBox.Show("User already exists.", "User registered success!", MessageBoxButton.OK);
}
}
I have a question regarding the sequencing of events in the scenario where you are calling a wcf service from silverlight 3 and updating the ui on a seperate thread. Basically, I would like to know whether what I am doing is correct... Sample is as follows. This is my first post on here, so bear with me, because i am not sure how to post actual code. Sample is as follows :
//<summary>
public static void Load(string userId)
{
//Build the request.
GetUserNameRequest request =
new GetUserNameRequest { UserId = userId };
//Open the connection.
instance.serviceClient = ServiceController.UserService;
//Make the request.
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
+= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
instance.serviceClient.GetGetUserNameAsync(request);
return instance.VM;
}
/// <summary>
private static void UserService_GetUserNameCompleted(object sender, GetUserNameCompletedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
Controller.UIDispatcher.BeginInvoke(() =>
{
//Load the response.
if (e.Result != null && e.Result.Success)
{
LoadResponse(e.Result);
}
//Completed loading data.
});
}
finally
{
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
-= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
ServiceHelper.CloseService(instance.serviceClient);
}
}
So my question basically is, inside of my UI thread when I am loading the response if that throws an exception, will the "finally" block catch that ? If not, should i put another try/catch inside of the lambda where I am loading the response ?
Also, since I am executing the load on the ui thread, is it possible that the finally will execute before the UI thread is done updating ? And could as a result call the Servicehelper.CloseService() before the load has been done ?
I ask because I am having intermittent problems using this approach.
The finally block should get executed before the processing of the response inside the BeginInvoke. BeginInvoke means that the code will get executed in the next UI cycle.
Typically the best approach to this type of thing is to pull all the data you need out of the response and store it in a variable and then clean up your service code. Then make a call to BeginInvoke and update the UI using the data in the variable.