I have been working on splitting up the app tier and web tier of a web application. In the app tier, I managed to separate the business logic into a bunch of services exposed using WCF proxies. The problem is that these services talk to another legacy application that uses a large CLR object as its primary means of communication. To keep things quick, I had been keeping a copy of this object in the session after I created it the first time. Now I know that WCF can do sessions, but the session storage is per service whereas my business logic is now split into multiple services (as it should be).
Now the questions:
Is there a way to share session storage between WCF services hosted on the same host?
Is this even something I should be doing?
If not, then what are the best practices here?
This is probably not the first time somebody’s had a large business object on the server. Unfortunately for me, I really do need to cache this object per user (hence the session).
It’s possible the answer is obvious and I'm just not seeing it. Help please!
I think instance context sharing can help
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa354514.aspx
As far as I understand WCF, it is designed to be as stateless as it could be. In a session you can remember some values in your service, but objects are not meant to live outside the scope of a session.
Therefore, I'd think you are in trouble.
Of course, there might be some way to store and exchange objects between sessions that I don't know (I use WCF, but I don't know very much about it, apart from what I need for myself).
(if there is a way to share objects between services, it probably would only work on services you host yourself. IIS hosting might recycle your service sometimes)
Perhaps you can wrap this object in a singleton service. This is a service with only one instance, which will not be destroyed between calls. Because you need an object for each user, this service has to manage a list of them and the calling services has to provide the needed authentication data (or sessionid). Don't forget a timeout to get rid of unneeded objects...
Create a facade service which hosts the large CLR object on behalf of the other app tier services. It can work as an adapter, allowing more specific session identifiers to the more advanced app tier services you have created. The facade can provide a session identifier, like a GUID, which your app tier services can use to get re-connected with the large CLR object.
This provides a few advantages:
Some of your app tier might not need to know about the CLR object at all. They only communicate with the remote facade.
the 'large CLR object' host retains the session object on behalf of the other services who can now share it.
The app tiers now have a facade through which they talk to the legacy service. As you work to refactor this legacy service, the app tier doesn't have to change.
Depending on your setup, you may be able to host the facade via in proc hosting which will give retain performance boost you are seeking.
Breaking things up into subservices seems like a good idea if you want to be able to spread the app out over a farm. However, it's important to keep in mind that whenever an object crosses the appdomain boundary at the vary least it will have to be copied in memory.
It all depends on how big the object is and what kind of data it holds.
If you don't want to pass the object because it's too large you may want to make a query API for the service which receives it. In this way you could manipulate that object without having to do expensive serialization or remoting.
Keep it simple. Since you already have access to Session in your WCF, you can use the SessionID from there. Now:
Create a static dictionary somewhere, where the Key is your sessionId and the value is the business object you want to store.
Instead of accessing the business object in session, just access the sessionid and get the business object from the Value of your dictionary.
(You can also use some type of caching if you wish, for example System.Web.Caching, that way you don't have to cleanup the dictionary manually)
Related
So bear with me, i am new at MVC and WCF. I already have a set of services (WCF) that exposes my BLL and I am trying to consume those from my MVC.net web application but i am unsure on how to perform security operations here.
These are my app requirements:
Be able to consume WCF services using different credentials for every user on the web application
My BLL (WCF) needs to know what consumer is calling it (right now I only have the MVC app but i am planning to add iOS and Andriod calls to it, so later on i will add REST services to the WCF endpoints) Is there any design pattern for this out there? (or should i just use the soap header to include the caller ID? should i use some sort of caller secret or something?)
I need a security mechanism like Tokens or something so I dont have to pass the username and password on every call of the service method (WCF)
What i have so far:
WCF uses a certificate and and with a custom username validator.
I have manually coded proxies using the contract interfaces instead of generated proxies: But I hate the fact that i have to validate username and password every time a call is made to a WCF service. How in heaven can i use Tokens here? like to know if a given token sent on the soap header is valid or not yet expired? i have searched a lot and no tutorial/code/example is clear enough for me to actually start coding that ;(
I am trying to cache the ChannelFactory but should I? i mean, i will need to cache a channer factory per logged in user per contract ;( is that ok? what can i do here?
Thanks in advance!
Should you cache the ChannelFactory per user per contract?
It depends. There are a couple of considerations. Instantiating a channel factory could take up to 70ms. If you are doing this repeatedly, you will see a noticeable performance hit if you are not caching the ChannelFactory and instantiating one (or more) each time a user makes a http request to your MVC app that results in controller actions calling web services. This would indicate that caching the channelFactory would be beneficial for speed.
On the other hand, depending on the number of users you have, if you are caching a lot of channel factories (in a static dictionary for example), you are going to start to use a non-trivial amount of memory - this may become an issue for you.
You have to decide if the cost of instantiating channel factories on the fly (and correctly closing / aborting them and their contained channels) is too high a price vs increasing memory utilisation in the application pool hosting your MVC app.
Either way, I strongly advise to profile your app before you deploy to production.
I am new to creating .NET restful web services and need to grasp the best practices for performance and scaling the following.
I am conncecting to Amazon AWS DynamoDB using their .NET SDK wrapper in C#. My code creates an object that stores the credentials necessary to interface with DynamoDB. What concerns me is that this calls is instantiated on every call. The credentials are stored in my profiles.settings collection and never change.
What I am wondering is whether there is a better way to get these values and create the object once and somehow persist it. I do not know whether or not it is better for performance and scalability to create each time or to look for some type of application cache simulation/alternative that applies to WCF web services.
I also do not know whether static objects come into play here or whether I should steer clear of them.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
You could use a static object to persist your credentials considering that those credentials are stored in your config file and as you have mentioned they do not change. Related to the WCF REST aspect, you could really simply your life by using WebAPI the new REST "framework" from Microsoft. WCF is kind of clumsy when it comes to REST.
I am writing an application that is consuming an in-house WCF-based REST service and I'll admit to being a REST newbie. Since I can't use the "Add Service Reference", I don't have ready-made proxy objects representing the return types from the service methods. So far the only way I've been able to work with the service is by sharing the assembly containing the data types exposed by the service.
My problem with this arrangment is that I see only two possibilities:
Implement DTOs (DataContracts) and expose those types from my service. I would still have to share an assembly but this approach would limit the types contained in the assembly to the service contract and DTOs. I don't like to use DTOs just for the sake of using them, though as they add another layer of abstraction and processing time to convert from domain object to DTO and vice versa. Plus, if I want to have business rules, validation, etc. on the client, I'd have to share the domain objects anyways, so is the added complexity necessary.
Support serialization of my domain objects, expose those types and share that assembly. This would allow me to share business and validation logic with the client but it also exposes parts of my domain objects to the client that are meant only for the service app.
Perhaps an example would help the discussion...
My client application will display a list of documents that is obtained from the REST service (a GET operation). The service returns an array of DocumentInfo objects (lightweight, read-only representation of a Document).
When the user selects one of the items, the client retrieves the full Document object from the REST service (GET by id) and displays a data entry form so the user can modify the object. We would want validation rules for a rich user experience.
When the user commits the changes, the Document object is submitted to the REST service (a PUT operation) where it is persisted to the back-end data store.
If the state of the Document allows, the user may "Publish" the Document. In this case, the client POSTs a request to the REST service with the Document.ID value and the service performs the operation by retrieving the server-side Document domain object and calling the Publish method. The Publish method should not be available to the client application.
As I see it, my Document and DocumentInfo objects would have to be in a shared assembly. Doing this makes Document.Publish available to the client. One idea to hide it would be to make the method internal and add an InternalsVisibleTo attribute that allows my service app to call the method and not the client but this seems "smelly."
Am I on the right track or completely missing something?
The classes you use on the server should not be the same classes you use on the client (apart from during the data transfer itself). The best approach is to create a package (assembly/project) containing DTOs, and share these between the server and the client. You did mention that you don't want to create DTO's for the sake of it, but it is best practice. The performance impact of adding extra layers is negligible, and layering actually helps make your application easier to develop and maintain (avoiding situations like yours where the client has access to server code).
I suggest starting with the following packages:
Service: Resides on server only, exposes the service and contains server application logic.
DTO: Resides on both server and client. Contains simple classes which contain data which need to be passed between server and client. Classes have no code apart from properties. These are short lived objects which survive long enough only to transfer data.
Repository: Resides on client only. Calls the server, and turns Model objects into DTO's (and vice versa).
Model: Resides on client only. Contains classes which represent business objects and relationships. Model objects stay in memory throughout the life of the application.
Your client application code should call into Repository to get Model objects (you might also consider looking into MVVM if your not sure how to go about this).
If your service code is sufficiently complex that it needs access to Model classes, you should create a separate Model package (obviously give it a different name) - the only classes which should exist both on server and client are DTO classes.
I thought that I'd post the approach I took while giving credit to both Greg and Jake for helping guide me down the path.
While Jake is correct that deserializing the data on the client can be done with any type as long as it implements the same data contract, enforcing this without WSDL can be a bit tricky. I'm in an environment where other developers will be working with my solution both to support and maintain the existing as well as creating new clients that consume my service. They are used to "Add Service Reference" and going.
Greg's points about using different objects on the client and the server were the most helpful. I was trying to minimize duplicate by sharing my domain layer between the client and the server and that was the root of my confusion. As soon as I separated these into two distinct applications and looked at them in isolation, each with their own use cases, the picture became clearer.
As a result, I am now sharing a Contracts assembly which contains my service contracts so that a client can easily create a channel to the server (using WCF on the client-side) and data contracts representing the DTOs passed between client and service.
On the client, I have ViewModel objects which wrap the Model objects (data contracts) for the UI and use a service agent class to communicate with the service using the service contracts from the shared assembly. So when the user clicks the "Publish" button in the UI, the controller (or command in WPF/SL) calls the Publish method on the service agent passing in the ID of the document to publish. The service agent relays the request to the REST API (Publish operation).
On the server, the REST API is implemented using the same service contracts. In this case, the service works with my domain services, repositories and domain objects to carry out the tasks. So when the Publish service operation is invoked, the service retrieves the Document domain object from the DocumentRepository, calls the Publish method on the object which updates the internal state of the object and then the service passes the updated object to the Update method of the repository to persist the changes.
I am pleased with the outcome as I believe this gives me a more robust and extensible architecture to work with. I can change the ViewModels as needed to support the UI with no concern over poluting the service(s) and, likewise, change the internal implementation of the service operations (domain layer) without affecting the client application(s). All that binds the two are the contracts they share. Pretty clean.
You can serialize your domain objects and then de-serialize them into different types on the client. Both types need to implement the same data contract. All serializable types have at least a default data contract that includes all public read/write properties and fields.
I am migrating a web service to WCF so I can use binary encoding. I am now realizing that the session calls and application state calls are not recognized. WCF is supposed to be better then a web service so I am assuming that there is a better way to do things.
1) How do I maintain session and call a web service that uses session?
2) How do I replace the application object?
For those of you who are migrating a large project and cannot afford to be so ideological, I found a real answer here:
http://megakemp.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/migrating-aspnet-web-services-to-wcf/
In WCF, the best practice is not to have any state whenever possible, since your clients should be calling you with a "per-call" approach - each call from a client gets a new instance of your WCF service class, which is totally independent of anything else, ideally.
If you need to have persistent state, store it in a persistent store - typically a database.
WCF is also by default totally independent of ASP.NET and IIS, and thus cannot leverage the HttpContext, HttpSessionState and so forth objects - since it might be self-hosted in a console app which has no knowledge of IIS, HTTP context etc.
The question is: what exactly do you really use from those HttpSessionState and HttpApplicationState objects? Somehow, you need to abstract that away or solve it some other way, e.g. have the client send you that information (as a parameter on your web service method call, or as a header in the message), or have the client send you a "token" of sorts which allows you to retrieve the relevant info from e.g. a database table.
Chapter 4 in Juval Lowy's excellent Programming WCF Services (link) is all about Instance Management. There are sections on Per-Session services and Durable services, each of which might be what you're looking for.
However, Marc's point is very valid. There are a lot of cons to using session with WCF services, but it is possible. Lowy discusses a lot of this in some detail.
Typical scenario. We use old-school XML Web Services internally for communicating between a server farm and several distributed and local clients. No third parties involved, only our applications used by ourselves and our customers.
We're currently pondering moving from XML WS to a WCF/object-based model and have been experimenting with various approaches. One of them involves transferring the domain objects/aggregates directly over the wire, possibly invoking DataContract attributes on them.
By using IExtensibleDataObject and a DataContract using the Order property on the DataMembers, we should be able to cope with simple property versioning issues (remember, we control all clients and can easily force-update them).
I keep hearing that we should use dedicated, transfer-only Data Transfer Objects (DTOs) over the wire.
Why? Is there still a reason to do so? We use the same domain model on the server side and client side, of course, prefilling collections, etc. only when deemed right and "necessary." Collection properties utilize the service locator principle and IoC to invoke either an NHibernate-based "service" to fetch data directly (on the server side), and a WCF "service" client on the client side to talk to the WCF server farm.
So - why do we need to use DTOs?
Having worked with both approaches (shared domain objects and DTOs) I'd say the big problem with shared domain objects is when you don't control all clients, but from my past experiences I'd usually use DTOs unless it development speed were of the essence.
If there's any chance that you won't always be in control of the clients then I'd definately recommend DTOs, because as soon as you share your domain objects with someone else's client application you start tying your internals to someone else's dev cycle.
I've also found DTOs useful when working in a versioned service environment, which allowed us to radically change the internals of our app but still accept calls to the old versions of our service interfaces.
Finally, if you have a lot of client applications it might also be beneficial to use DTOs as you're then protected with an easily versionable service.
In my experience DTOs are most useful for:
Strictly defining what will be sent over the wire and having a type specifically devoted to that definition.
Isolating the rest of your application, client and server, from future changes.
Interoperability with non-.Net systems. DTOs certainly aren't a requirement, but they make it easier to design "safe" types.
In your scenario these design features may not matter that much. I've used WCF with both strict DTOs and shared Domain Objects and in both scenarios it worked great. The only thing I noticed when sending Domain Objects over the wire was that I tended to send more data (and in unexpected ways) then I needed to. This was likely more due to my lack of experience with WCF than anything else; but it's something you should definitely be wary of should you choose to go that route.