I have an asynchronous WCF service using nettcpbinding. And I send a bunch of requests to it and get result by invoking EndDoWork() in my callback. If EndDonWork throw a exception once, all the invocation after that will throw exception said: communication object, System.ServiceModel.Channels.ServiceChannel, cannot be used for communication because it is in the Faulted state.
I think that's something close the connection because of the first exception. My question is:
1. what decide this behavior? If I use basicHttpBinding, the later invocation of EndDoWork work well. Is it related with keepAlive support?
2. Is there any property of configuration item I can set to ask service reconnect automatically?
The Faulted state of the channel indicates that it cannot be relied on any more. You did not mention what the reason was why the exception was thrown (connectivity, server stopped etc), but as far as WCF is concerned the endpoint is invalid and therefore faulted.
You should recreate the channel and connect to the service again to continue any of your operations. If you use features like Reliable connections then some of the work may be done for you, but if the channel is eventually faulted, the same rules apply.
You will also have to implement your own message queue to re-request messages that were pending when the channel faulted. You cannot rely on the channel to keep and resend the messages.
If I remember correctly, you can avoid the channel faulting if you declare the Fault in the operation contract.
For example:
[ServiceContract]
public interface IService
{
[OperationContract]
[FaultContract(typeof(MyDefinedFault))]
void Operation();
}
As you have already declared MyDefinedFault in the Operation contract if you throw that from the service, the channel is not going to fault (unless of course you are using the System.ServiceModel.Description.ServiceDebugBehavior.IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults=true that may fault the channel anyways).
Where is the MyDefinedFault class.
how to define this class.
Related
So I have been tasked with setting up MSMQ so that if our mail server goes down (which is seems to often) the messages just end up in the Queue and will be delivered when they come back up. With that said I have to say I don't know much about this except what I have learned in the past 24 hours however I believe I know enough to take the right approach but I wanted to ask someone in the community because there is some confusion amongst my colleagues given some existing setup in our WCF application.
Currently we have some services that use msmq as the protocol for the endpoint. the endpoint looks like this
<endpoint address="net.msmq://localhost/private/Publisher"
behaviorConfiguration="BatchBehaviour"
binding="netMsmqBinding"
bindingConfiguration="MSMQNoSecurity"
contract="HumanArc.Compass.Shared.Publisher.Interfaces.Service.IPublisherSubscriber"
name="PublishSubscriber"/>
This of course lets the client make a service call and if for some reason the service wasn't up it will ensure that when the service comes back up the call will be processed. What I don't think that it will do is if you have something like the following in you service method.
try
{
smtp.Send(mail);
return true;
}
catch (System.Net.Mail.SmtpFailedRecipientException ex)
{
throw new Exception("User Credentials for sending the Email are Invalid",ex);
}
catch (System.Net.Mail.SmtpException smtpEx)
{
throw new Exception(string.Format("Application encountered a problem send a mail message to {0} ", smtpHostName),smtpEx);
}
WCF isn't going to retry and send the message again somehow, am I correct about this assumption?
What I think we should have is something that looks like the following in place of the call to smtp.send() above. (from http://www.bowu.org/it/microsoft/net/email-asp-net-mvc-msmq-2.html)
string queuePath = #".\private$\WebsiteEmails";
MessageQueue msgQ;
//if this queue doesn't exist we will create it
if(!MessageQueue.Exists(queuePath))
MessageQueue.Create(queuePath);
msgQ = new MessageQueue(queuePath);
msgQ.Formatter = new BinaryMessageFormatter();
msgQ.Send(msg);
Then somewhere in the startup of the service (I am not sure where yet) we set up an event handler that will actually call send() on the SmtpClient object. Something like this
msgQ.ReceiveCompleted += new ReceiveCompletedEventHandler(msgQ_ReceiveCompleted)
So to sum it all up my first question is which way is better? Create a service that uses net:msmq as the protocol or just change the email method to put messages in the queue and set up a handler for it? The next question, if my assumption about changing the method that calls SmtpClient.Send() is correct then where in the program should I wire up ReceiveCompleted? Out WCF service is hosted in a windows service, meaning there is actually a call to ServiceBase.Run(servicesToRun). Is there a place I could wire it up there? My experience with WCF is with much simpler IIS hosted services so I am not 100% sure.
Thanks - I realize this is a long question but I have been trying to research it and there is a lot of information and I can't seem to find a clear explanation of the benefits of doing things one way vs another.
Your approach to using msmq to address availability in a downstream dependency (in this case your smtp server) is valid. However, there are a couple of things you should understand about msmq first.
If you create a queue in msmq then by default it is non-transactional. In this mode the queue will not provide the kind of guaranteed delivery semantic you require. So create your queues as transactional.
Then you can tell WCF that your service operation will enlist in the transaction when it receives a message for processing. You do this by defining a behavior on your service operation implementation:
[OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true, TransactionAutoComplete = true)]
public void SendEmail(Something mail)
{
....
smtp.Send(mail);
}
TransactionScopeRequired tells WCF that the service operation should enlist in the same transaction used to transmit the message from sender to receiver. TransactionAutoComplete states that the service method should commit the transaction once the operation has successfully completed. So in answer to your query above, a failure in the service operation will cause the transaction to rollback.
What happens at this point depends on your service bindings configuration.
<netMsmqBinding>
<binding name="netMsmqBinding_IMyServiceInterface"
exactlyOnce="true"
maxRetryCycles="3"
retryCycleDelay="00:01:00"
receiveErrorHandling="Move"> <-- this defines behavior after failure
...
</binding>
</netMsmqBinding>
When, for whatever reason the transaction is not committed (for example, an unhandled exception occurs), WCF will roll the message back onto the queue and retry processing once per minute up to 3 times (defined by maxRetryCycles and retryCycleDelay).
If the message still fails processing after this time then the receiveErrorHandling attribute tells WCF what to do next (The above binding specifies that the message be moved to the system poison message queue).
Note: exactlyOnce tells WCF that we require transactions, that each message will be delivered exactly once and in the order they were sent.
So your original approach is in fact correct and you just need to configure your service correctly to implement the behavior you want.
For some reason, all the examples I find on WCF MSMQ show void as the return type of the method. Is this just coincidence? If not, why? What are the valid return types?
There are no valid Return types for sending to to a WCF service on an MSMQ end point.
Because you are writing to a queue and not directly communicating with the service the communication channel is not available for the service to send a response. Additionally one of the major benefits of writing to the queue is that the service may not even be running at the point the message is sent, the message will get picked up once the service becomes active again.
If no exception is thrown whilst sending to the service then you know that the message has at the very least been added to the message queue.
I have a WPF client that makes calls to 2 WCF services.
One service is for querying only and one service is for commands (CQS pattern).
How should I make the calls to the commands service ?
I read somewhere that all the operations in the command service must be 'One-Way',
because they should not return any values. And that if something went wrong - the operation should throw a 'FaultException' to the client.
But if the commands are all One-Way - what do I do in the client ?
Say I have an 'AddProduct' window in the WPF client, and I enter information and press 'Save'.
I now call 'AddProduct(Product)' in the service, but :
Should it close the window ?
Should it wait for 10 seconds to see if there wasn't any FaultException ?
Should the operation not be 'One-Way' ? If so - should all operations in the command service return some type of generic 'Result' object with 'succeeded' or 'failed' ?
If section 3 is 'Yes' - should I call the service in a seperate thread and 'disable' all the controls on the window until I get a response back from the service ?
Thanks.
I would say option 3 is the way to go, but you probably do not need the generic Result object to communicate errors to the client. As you might know, exceptions are not serialized in the SOAP message so you won't get any of the usual .NET exceptions on the client side. On the other hand, you can still take advantage of SOAP Faults by catching FaultException on the client. Accordingly, if no exceptions were caught on the client, then everything went well.
For more information about fault exceptions and how you can use them to your benefit, take a look at:
Specifying and Handling Faults in Contracts and Services
I think using On-Way is fine but you have to be aware of some one-way call characteristic. If you care and can handle service exceptions then #4 is fine option.
One Way message - Once the client issues the call, WCF generates the request message but no correlated message will be ever returned to the client. Any exceptions thrown on the service side will not make it to the client.
One thing that you should have on is the reliability on your service so side so that you can insure that request has been delivered to the service.
When there is no transport session (basic or wsHttp binding) if exception occurs during the call of one-way operation client will be unaffected and it can continue sending calls on the same proxy instance.
If there is a presence of transport session - service side exception will fault the channel hence client will not be able to re-use proxy for sending more calls. This can give you an option to discover if something went wrong on the server side (but not what went wrong). Although, if service is using a FaultContracts you can still get into situation where client is unaware that something went wrong.
When service throws an exception listed in service side fault contract this will not fault the communication channel hence the client using one-way contract cannot detect communication failure.
I created a WCF service and the user requirement is to have only one client connected on the service at a time.
So I set the value of the parameter maxConcurrentSessions to 1.
It's working great and if another client try to connect after a specific time it receives a timeout exception error.
But I don't like to send the timeout exception error to the client I want to have a more specific error like :
A timeout occurs because the number of maximum client on the service was reached.
Something like that.
It's there a way to do that?
Thanks
You can override default exceptions by implementing IErrorHandler
From MSDN
To explicitly control the behavior of the application when an
exception is thrown, implement the IErrorHandler interface and add it
to the ErrorHandlers property. IErrorHandler enables you to explicitly
control the SOAP fault generated, decide whether to send it back to
the client, and perform associated tasks, such as logging. Error
handlers are called in the order in which they were added to the
ErrorHandlers property.
Implement the ProvideFault method to control the fault message that is
returned to the client
Also check this one .Net WFC/Web service exception handling design pattern
In my client program, there is a WCF connection that is opened at startup and supposedly stays connected til shutdown. However, there is a chance that the server closes due to unforeseeable circumstances (imagine someone pulling the cable).
Since the client uses a lot of contract methods in a lot of places, I don't want to add a try/catch on every method call.
I've got 2 ideas for handling this issue:
Create a method that takes a delegate and executes the delegate inside a try/catch and returns an Exception in case of a known exception, or null else. The caller has to deal with nun-null results.
Listen to the Faulted event of the underlying CommunicationObject. But I don't see how I could handle the event except for displaying some error message and shutting down.
Are there some best practices for faulted WCF connection that exist for app lifetime?
If you do have both ends of the wire under your control - both the server and the client are .NET apps - you could think about this approach instead:
put all your service and data contracts into a shared assembly, that both the server and the client will use
create the ChannelFactory<IYourService> at startup time and cache it; since it needs to have access to the service contract, this only works if you can share the actual service contract between server and client. This operation is the expensive part of building the WCF client
ChannelFactory<IYourService> factory = new ChannelFactory<IYourService>();
create the actual communications channel between client and server each time you make a call, based on the ChannelFactory. This is pretty cheap and doesn't cost much time - and you can totally skip any thoughts about having to detect or deal with faulted channels.....
IYourService client = factory.CreateChannel();
client.CallYourServiceMethod();
Otherwise, what you basically need to do is wrap all service calls into a method, which will first check for a channel's faulted state, and if the client proxy is faulted, aborts the current one and re-creates a new one.
I wrote a blog post on exceptions in WCF that deals with how to handle this: http://jamescbender.com/bendersblog/Default.aspx