Develop Reference

Looking for a way to do less locking while caching

I am using the code below to cache items. It's pretty basic.
The issue I have is that every time it caches an item, section of the code locks. So with roughly a million items arriving every hour or so, this is a problem.
I've tried creating a dictionary of static lock objects per cacheKey, so that locking is granular, but that in itself becomes an issue with managing expiration of them, etc...
Is there a better way to implement minimal locking?
private static readonly object cacheLock = new object();
public static T GetFromCache<T>(string cacheKey, Func<T> GetData) where T : class {
// Returns null if the string does not exist, prevents a race condition
// where the cache invalidates between the contains check and the retrieval.
T cachedData = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as T;
if (cachedData != null) {
return cachedData;
}
lock (cacheLock) {
// Check to see if anyone wrote to the cache while we where
// waiting our turn to write the new value.
cachedData = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as T;
if (cachedData != null) {
return cachedData;
}
// The value still did not exist so we now write it in to the cache.
cachedData = GetData();
MemoryCache.Default.Set(cacheKey, cachedData, new CacheItemPolicy(...));
return cachedData;
}
}

You may want to consider using ReaderWriterLockSlim, which you can obtain write lock only when needed.
Using cacheLock.EnterReadLock(); and cacheLock.EnterWriteLock(); should greatly improve the performance.
That link I gave even have an example of a cache, exactly what you need, I copy here:
public class SynchronizedCache
{
private ReaderWriterLockSlim cacheLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
private Dictionary<int, string> innerCache = new Dictionary<int, string>();
public int Count
{ get { return innerCache.Count; } }
public string Read(int key)
{
cacheLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
return innerCache[key];
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public void Add(int key, string value)
{
cacheLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
innerCache.Add(key, value);
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public bool AddWithTimeout(int key, string value, int timeout)
{
if (cacheLock.TryEnterWriteLock(timeout))
{
try
{
innerCache.Add(key, value);
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
public AddOrUpdateStatus AddOrUpdate(int key, string value)
{
cacheLock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();
try
{
string result = null;
if (innerCache.TryGetValue(key, out result))
{
if (result == value)
{
return AddOrUpdateStatus.Unchanged;
}
else
{
cacheLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
innerCache[key] = value;
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
return AddOrUpdateStatus.Updated;
}
}
else
{
cacheLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
innerCache.Add(key, value);
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
return AddOrUpdateStatus.Added;
}
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();
}
}
public void Delete(int key)
{
cacheLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
innerCache.Remove(key);
}
finally
{
cacheLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public enum AddOrUpdateStatus
{
Added,
Updated,
Unchanged
};
~SynchronizedCache()
{
if (cacheLock != null) cacheLock.Dispose();
}
}

I don't know how MemoryCache.Default is implemented, or whether or not you have control over it.
But in general, prefer using ConcurrentDictionary over Dictionary with lock in a multi threaded environment.
GetFromCache would just become
ConcurrentDictionary<string, T> cache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, T>();
...
cache.GetOrAdd("someKey", (key) =>
{
var data = PullDataFromDatabase(key);
return data;
});
There are two more things to take care about.
Expiry
Instead of saving T as the value of the dictionary, you can define a type
struct CacheItem<T>
{
public T Item { get; set; }
public DateTime Expiry { get; set; }
}
And store the cache as a CacheItem with a defined expiry.
cache.GetOrAdd("someKey", (key) =>
{
var data = PullDataFromDatabase(key);
return new CacheItem<T>() { Item = data, Expiry = DateTime.UtcNow.Add(TimeSpan.FromHours(1)) };
});
Now you can implement expiration in an asynchronous thread.
Timer expirationTimer = new Timer(ExpireCache, null, 60000, 60000);
...
void ExpireCache(object state)
{
var needToExpire = cache.Where(c => DateTime.UtcNow >= c.Value.Expiry).Select(c => c.Key);
foreach (var key in needToExpire)
{
cache.TryRemove(key, out CacheItem<T> _);
}
}
Once a minute, you search for all cache entries that need to be expired, and remove them.
"Locking"
Using ConcurrentDictionary guarantees that simultaneous read/writes won't corrupt the dictionary or throw an exception.
But, you can still end up with a situation where two simultaneous reads cause you to fetch the data from the database twice.
One neat trick to solve this is to wrap the value of the dictionary with Lazy
ConcurrentDictionary<string, Lazy<CacheItem<T>>> cache = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, Lazy<CacheItem<T>>>();
...
var data = cache.GetOrData("someKey", key => new Lazy<CacheItem<T>>(() =>
{
var data = PullDataFromDatabase(key);
return new CacheItem<T>() { Item = data, Expiry = DateTime.UtcNow.Add(TimeSpan.FromHours(1)) };
})).Value;
Explanation
with GetOrAdd you might end up invoking the "get from database if not in cache" delegate multiple times in the case of simultaneous requests.
However, GetOrAdd will end up using only one of the values that the delegate returned, and by returning a Lazy, you guaranty that only one Lazy will get invoked.

Where in my class should i populate MemoryCache?

I have a class that returns a cache, usage currently:
var cache = new ProductCache().Get();
then cache is a List<> that can be enumerated.
question is really should i populate this cache when ProductCache() is instantiated in the constructor, or when it is retrieved?
Option 1:
public class ProductCache
{
private readonly string key = "Product";
private readonly object cacheLock = new object();
ObjectCache cache = MemoryCache.Default;
public ProductCache()
{
}
public List<string> Get()
{
// Try to return.
var data = cache.Get(key) as List<string>;
if (data != null)
return data;
lock (cacheLock)
{
// Check again.
data = cache.Get(key) as List<string>;
if (data != null)
return data;
// Populate, and return.
data = PopulateFromElsewhere();
cache.Set(key, data, DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddSeconds(20));
return data;
}
}
private List<string> PopulateFromElsewhere()
{
return new List<string> { "Ball", "Stick" };
}
}
Option 2:
public class ProductCache
{
private readonly string key = "Product";
private readonly object cacheLock = new object();
ObjectCache cache = MemoryCache.Default;
public ProductCache()
{
var data = cache.Get(key);
if (data != null)
return;
lock (cacheLock)
{
// Check again.
data = cache.Get(key);
if (data != null)
return;
// Populate, and return.
PopulateFromElsewhere();
}
}
public List<string> Get()
{
return cache.Get(key) as List<string>;
}
private void PopulateFromElsewhere()
{
var data = new List<string> { "Ball", "Stick" };
cache.Set(key, data, DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddSeconds(20));
}
}
is the second option thread safe (enough)? i think the first one is....
there are other caches too.. and they are all similar, so i was planning on putting all the actual locking / loading behaviour in an abstract class
var storeCache = new StoreCache().Get();
var otherCache = new OtherCache().Get();
I guess the other option is a static class, but then there would need to be duplication of the locking mechanisms as i can't make that abstract... that could be quite nice, and used like...
var cache = GlobalCache.Stores();

If you want to reuse your cache logic but want flexibility in your child classes you could use Template method pattern:
public abstract class BaseCache
{
private readonly object cacheLock = new object();
protected ObjectCache cache = MemoryCache.Default;
public List<string> Get()
{
// for example. It could be anywhere and return any type.
ChildLogic();
var data = cache.Get(key);
if (data != null)
return;
lock (cacheLock)
{
// Check again.
data = cache.Get(key);
if (data != null)
return;
// Populate, and return.
PopulateFromElsewhere();
}
}
protected abstract void ChildLogic();
protected abstract void PopulateFromElsewhere();
}
And then in your child classes you should implement ChildLogic() and PopulateFromElsewhere() any way you want.
Of course you are not required to have method ChildLogic() at all.

How can I make this Concurrent Dictionary expire with a timer?

This code seems to do a good job of caching async method results. I would like to add some sort of expiration to it. I have tried Tuple but I was not successful in getting it to fully work / compile.
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim> _keyLocks = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim>();
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, Tuple<List<UnitDTO>, DateTime>> _cache = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, Tuple<List<UnitDTO>, DateTime>>();
public async Task<string> GetSomethingAsync(string key)
{
string value;
// get the semaphore specific to this key
var keyLock = _keyLocks.GetOrAdd(key, x => new SemaphoreSlim(1));
await keyLock.WaitAsync();
try
{
// try to get value from cache
if (!_cache.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
// if value isn't cached, get it the long way asynchronously
value = await GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync();
// cache value
_cache.TryAdd(key, value);
}
}
finally
{
keyLock.Release();
}
return value;
}

Classical approaches and quotations
From msdn, by Stephen Cleary
Asynchronous code is often used to initialize a resource that’s then
cached and shared. There isn’t a built-in type for this, but Stephen
Toub developed an AsyncLazy that acts like a merge of Task and
Lazy. The original type is described on his blog, and an
updated version is available in my AsyncEx library.
public class AsyncLazy<T> : Lazy<Task<T>>
{
public AsyncLazy(Func<T> valueFactory) :
base(() => Task.Factory.StartNew(valueFactory)) { }
public AsyncLazy(Func<Task<T>> taskFactory) :
base(() => Task.Factory.StartNew(() => taskFactory()).Unwrap()) { }
}
Context
Let’s say in our program we have one of these AsyncLazy instances:
static string LoadString() { … }
static AsyncLazy<string> m_data = new AsyncLazy<string>(LoadString);
Usage
Thus, we can write an asynchronous method that does:
string data = await m_data.Value;
The Lazy<T> would be appropriate, but unfortunately it seems to lack the input parameter to index the result. The same issue was solved here where it is explained how to cache the results from a long-running, resource-intensive method, in case it is not async
Back to your proposed solution
Before I show the main changes related to the cache management and specific to your proposed implementation, let me suggest a couple of marginal optimization options, based on the following concerns.
often with locks, when you access them they’re uncontended, and in
such cases you really want acquiring and releasing the lock to be as
low-overhead as possible; in other words, accessing uncontended locks
should involve a fast path
Since they're just performance optimization tricks, I will leave them commented in the code so that you can measure their effects in your specific situation before.
You need to test TryGetValue again after awaiting because another parallel process could have added that value in the meantime
You don't need to keep the lock while you're awaiting
This balance of overhead vs cache misses was already pointed out in a previous answer to a similar question.
Obviously, there's overhead keeping SemaphoreSlim objects around to
prevent cache misses so it may not be worth it depending on the use
case. But if guaranteeing no cache misses is important than this
accomplishes that.
My main answer: the cache management
Regarding the cache expiration, I would suggest to add the creation DateTime to the value of the Dictionary (i.e. the time when the value is returned from GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync) and consequently discard the cached value after a fixed time span.
Find a draft below
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim> _keyLocks = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim>();
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, Tuple<string, DateTime>> _cache = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, Tuple<string, DateTime>>();
private static bool IsExpiredDelete(Tuple<string, DateTime> value, string key)
{
bool _is_exp = (DateTime.Now - value.Item2).TotalMinutes > Expiration;
if (_is_exp)
{
_cache.TryRemove(key, out value);
}
return _is_exp;
}
public async Task<string> GetSomethingAsync(string key)
{
Tuple<string, DateTime> cached;
// get the semaphore specific to this key
var keyLock = _keyLocks.GetOrAdd(key, x => new SemaphoreSlim(1));
await keyLock.WaitAsync();
try
{
// try to get value from cache
if (!_cache.TryGetValue(key, out cached) || IsExpiredDelete(cached,key))
{
//possible performance optimization: measure it before uncommenting
//keyLock.Release();
string value = await GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync(key);
DateTime creation = DateTime.Now;
// in case of performance optimization
// get the semaphore specific to this key
//keyLock = _keyLocks.GetOrAdd(key, x => new SemaphoreSlim(1));
//await keyLock.WaitAsync();
bool notFound;
if (notFound = !_cache.TryGetValue(key, out cached) || IsExpiredDelete(cached, key))
{
cached = new Tuple<string, DateTime>(value, creation);
_cache.TryAdd(key, cached);
}
else
{
if (!notFound && cached.Item2 < creation)
{
cached = new Tuple<string, DateTime>(value, creation);
_cache.TryAdd(key, cached);
}
}
}
}
finally
{
keyLock.Release();
}
return cached?.Item1;
}
Please, adapt the above code to your specific needs.
Making it more generic
Finally you may want to generalize it a little bit.
By the way, notice that the Dictionary are not static since one could cache two different methods with the same signature.
public class Cached<FromT, ToT>
{
private Func<FromT, Task<ToT>> GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync;
public Cached (Func<FromT, Task<ToT>> _GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync, int expiration_min ) {
GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync = _GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync;
Expiration = expiration_min;
}
int Expiration = 1;
private ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, SemaphoreSlim> _keyLocks = new ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, SemaphoreSlim>();
private ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, Tuple<ToT, DateTime>> _cache = new ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, Tuple<ToT, DateTime>>();
private bool IsExpiredDelete(Tuple<ToT, DateTime> value, FromT key)
{
bool _is_exp = (DateTime.Now - value.Item2).TotalMinutes > Expiration;
if (_is_exp)
{
_cache.TryRemove(key, out value);
}
return _is_exp;
}
public async Task<ToT> GetSomethingAsync(FromT key)
{
Tuple<ToT, DateTime> cached;
// get the semaphore specific to this key
var keyLock = _keyLocks.GetOrAdd(key, x => new SemaphoreSlim(1));
await keyLock.WaitAsync();
try
{
// try to get value from cache
if (!_cache.TryGetValue(key, out cached) || IsExpiredDelete(cached, key))
{
//possible performance optimization: measure it before uncommenting
//keyLock.Release();
ToT value = await GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync(key);
DateTime creation = DateTime.Now;
// in case of performance optimization
// get the semaphore specific to this key
//keyLock = _keyLocks.GetOrAdd(key, x => new SemaphoreSlim(1));
//await keyLock.WaitAsync();
bool notFound;
if (notFound = !_cache.TryGetValue(key, out cached) || IsExpiredDelete(cached, key))
{
cached = new Tuple<ToT, DateTime>(value, creation);
_cache.TryAdd(key, cached);
}
else
{
if (!notFound && cached.Item2 < creation)
{
cached = new Tuple<ToT, DateTime>(value, creation);
_cache.TryAdd(key, cached);
}
}
}
}
finally
{
keyLock.Release();
}
return cached.Item1;
}
}
For a generic FromT an IEqualityComparer is needed for the Dictionary
Usage/Demo
private static async Task<string> GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync(int key)
{
await Task.Delay(15000);
Console.WriteLine("Long way for: " + key);
return key.ToString();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Test().Wait();
}
private static async Task Test()
{
int key;
string val;
key = 1;
var cache = new Cached<int, string>(GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync, 1);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key);
val = await cache.GetSomethingAsync(key);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key + " resulted in " + val);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key);
val = await cache.GetSomethingAsync(key);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key + " resulted in " + val);
await Task.Delay(65000);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key);
val = await cache.GetSomethingAsync(key);
Console.WriteLine("getting " + key + " resulted in " + val);
Console.ReadKey();
}
Sophisticated alternatives
There are also more advanced possibilities like the overload of GetOrAdd that takes a delegate and Lazy objects to ensure that a generator function is called only once (instead of semaphores and locks).
public class AsyncCache<FromT, ToT>
{
private Func<FromT, Task<ToT>> GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync;
public AsyncCache(Func<FromT, Task<ToT>> _GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync, int expiration_min)
{
GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync = _GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync;
Expiration = expiration_min;
}
int Expiration;
private ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, Tuple<Lazy<Task<ToT>>, DateTime>> _cache =
new ConcurrentDictionary<FromT, Tuple<Lazy<Task<ToT>>, DateTime>>();
private bool IsExpiredDelete(Tuple<Lazy<Task<ToT>>, DateTime> value, FromT key)
{
bool _is_exp = (DateTime.Now - value.Item2).TotalMinutes > Expiration;
if (_is_exp)
{
_cache.TryRemove(key, out value);
}
return _is_exp;
}
public async Task<ToT> GetSomethingAsync(FromT key)
{
var res = _cache.AddOrUpdate(key,
t => new Tuple<Lazy<Task<ToT>>, DateTime>(new Lazy<Task<ToT>>(
() => GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync(key)
)
, DateTime.Now) ,
(k,t) =>
{
if (IsExpiredDelete(t, k))
{
return new Tuple<Lazy<Task<ToT>>, DateTime>(new Lazy<Task<ToT>>(
() => GetSomethingTheLongWayAsync(k)
), DateTime.Now);
}
return t;
}
);
return await res.Item1.Value;
}
}
Same usage, just replace AsyncCache instead of Cached.

Call code once when controller is first accessed [duplicate]

I have read lots of information about page caching and partial page caching in a MVC application. However, I would like to know how you would cache data.
In my scenario I will be using LINQ to Entities (entity framework). On the first call to GetNames (or whatever the method is) I want to grab the data from the database. I want to save the results in cache and on the second call to use the cached version if it exists.
Can anyone show an example of how this would work, where this should be implemented (model?) and if it would work.
I have seen this done in traditional ASP.NET apps , typically for very static data.

Here's a nice and simple cache helper class/service I use:
using System.Runtime.Caching;
public class InMemoryCache: ICacheService
{
public T GetOrSet<T>(string cacheKey, Func<T> getItemCallback) where T : class
{
T item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as T;
if (item == null)
{
item = getItemCallback();
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(10));
}
return item;
}
}
interface ICacheService
{
T GetOrSet<T>(string cacheKey, Func<T> getItemCallback) where T : class;
}
Usage:
cacheProvider.GetOrSet("cache key", (delegate method if cache is empty));
Cache provider will check if there's anything by the name of "cache id" in the cache, and if there's not, it will call a delegate method to fetch data and store it in cache.
Example:
var products=cacheService.GetOrSet("catalog.products", ()=>productRepository.GetAll())

Reference the System.Web dll in your model and use System.Web.Caching.Cache
public string[] GetNames()
{
string[] names = Cache["names"] as string[];
if(names == null) //not in cache
{
names = DB.GetNames();
Cache["names"] = names;
}
return names;
}
A bit simplified but I guess that would work. This is not MVC specific and I have always used this method for caching data.

I'm referring to TT's post and suggest the following approach:
Reference the System.Web dll in your model and use System.Web.Caching.Cache
public string[] GetNames()
{
var noms = Cache["names"];
if(noms == null)
{
noms = DB.GetNames();
Cache["names"] = noms;
}
return ((string[])noms);
}
You should not return a value re-read from the cache, since you'll never know if at that specific moment it is still in the cache. Even if you inserted it in the statement before, it might already be gone or has never been added to the cache - you just don't know.
So you add the data read from the database and return it directly, not re-reading from the cache.

For .NET 4.5+ framework
add reference: System.Runtime.Caching
add using statement:
using System.Runtime.Caching;
public string[] GetNames()
{
var noms = System.Runtime.Caching.MemoryCache.Default["names"];
if(noms == null)
{
noms = DB.GetNames();
System.Runtime.Caching.MemoryCache.Default["names"] = noms;
}
return ((string[])noms);
}
In the .NET Framework 3.5 and earlier versions, ASP.NET provided an in-memory cache implementation in the System.Web.Caching namespace. In previous versions of the .NET Framework, caching was available only in the System.Web namespace and therefore required a dependency on ASP.NET classes. In the .NET Framework 4, the System.Runtime.Caching namespace contains APIs that are designed for both Web and non-Web applications.
More info:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997357(v=vs.110).aspx
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/performance/caching-in-net-framework-applications

Steve Smith did two great blog posts which demonstrate how to use his CachedRepository pattern in ASP.NET MVC. It uses the repository pattern effectively and allows you to get caching without having to change your existing code.
http://ardalis.com/Introducing-the-CachedRepository-Pattern
http://ardalis.com/building-a-cachedrepository-via-strategy-pattern
In these two posts he shows you how to set up this pattern and also explains why it is useful. By using this pattern you get caching without your existing code seeing any of the caching logic. Essentially you use the cached repository as if it were any other repository.

I have used it in this way and it works for me.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.caching.cache.add(v=vs.110).aspx
parameters info for system.web.caching.cache.add.
public string GetInfo()
{
string name = string.Empty;
if(System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache["KeyName"] == null)
{
name = GetNameMethod();
System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache.Add("KeyName", name, null, DateTime.Noew.AddMinutes(5), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration, CacheitemPriority.AboveNormal, null);
}
else
{
name = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Cache["KeyName"] as string;
}
return name;
}

AppFabric Caching is distributed and an in-memory caching technic that stores data in key-value pairs using physical memory across multiple servers. AppFabric provides performance and scalability improvements for .NET Framework applications. Concepts and Architecture

Extending #Hrvoje Hudo's answer...
Code:
using System;
using System.Runtime.Caching;
public class InMemoryCache : ICacheService
{
public TValue Get<TValue>(string cacheKey, int durationInMinutes, Func<TValue> getItemCallback) where TValue : class
{
TValue item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as TValue;
if (item == null)
{
item = getItemCallback();
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(durationInMinutes));
}
return item;
}
public TValue Get<TValue, TId>(string cacheKeyFormat, TId id, int durationInMinutes, Func<TId, TValue> getItemCallback) where TValue : class
{
string cacheKey = string.Format(cacheKeyFormat, id);
TValue item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as TValue;
if (item == null)
{
item = getItemCallback(id);
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(durationInMinutes));
}
return item;
}
}
interface ICacheService
{
TValue Get<TValue>(string cacheKey, Func<TValue> getItemCallback) where TValue : class;
TValue Get<TValue, TId>(string cacheKeyFormat, TId id, Func<TId, TValue> getItemCallback) where TValue : class;
}
Examples
Single item caching (when each item is cached based on its ID because caching the entire catalog for the item type would be too intensive).
Product product = cache.Get("product_{0}", productId, 10, productData.getProductById);
Caching all of something
IEnumerable<Categories> categories = cache.Get("categories", 20, categoryData.getCategories);
Why TId
The second helper is especially nice because most data keys are not composite. Additional methods could be added if you use composite keys often. In this way you avoid doing all sorts of string concatenation or string.Formats to get the key to pass to the cache helper. It also makes passing the data access method easier because you don't have to pass the ID into the wrapper method... the whole thing becomes very terse and consistant for the majority of use cases.

Here's an improvement to Hrvoje Hudo's answer. This implementation has a couple of key improvements:
Cache keys are created automatically based on the function to update data and the object passed in that specifies dependencies
Pass in time span for any cache duration
Uses a lock for thread safety
Note that this has a dependency on Newtonsoft.Json to serialize the dependsOn object, but that can be easily swapped out for any other serialization method.
ICache.cs
public interface ICache
{
T GetOrSet<T>(Func<T> getItemCallback, object dependsOn, TimeSpan duration) where T : class;
}
InMemoryCache.cs
using System;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Runtime.Caching;
using Newtonsoft.Json;
public class InMemoryCache : ICache
{
private static readonly object CacheLockObject = new object();
public T GetOrSet<T>(Func<T> getItemCallback, object dependsOn, TimeSpan duration) where T : class
{
string cacheKey = GetCacheKey(getItemCallback, dependsOn);
T item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as T;
if (item == null)
{
lock (CacheLockObject)
{
item = getItemCallback();
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.Add(duration));
}
}
return item;
}
private string GetCacheKey<T>(Func<T> itemCallback, object dependsOn) where T: class
{
var serializedDependants = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(dependsOn);
var methodType = itemCallback.GetType();
return methodType.FullName + serializedDependants;
}
}
Usage:
var order = _cache.GetOrSet(
() => _session.Set<Order>().SingleOrDefault(o => o.Id == orderId)
, new { id = orderId }
, new TimeSpan(0, 10, 0)
);

public sealed class CacheManager
{
private static volatile CacheManager instance;
private static object syncRoot = new Object();
private ObjectCache cache = null;
private CacheItemPolicy defaultCacheItemPolicy = null;
private CacheEntryRemovedCallback callback = null;
private bool allowCache = true;
private CacheManager()
{
cache = MemoryCache.Default;
callback = new CacheEntryRemovedCallback(this.CachedItemRemovedCallback);
defaultCacheItemPolicy = new CacheItemPolicy();
defaultCacheItemPolicy.AbsoluteExpiration = DateTime.Now.AddHours(1.0);
defaultCacheItemPolicy.RemovedCallback = callback;
allowCache = StringUtils.Str2Bool(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["AllowCache"]); ;
}
public static CacheManager Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new CacheManager();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
}
public IEnumerable GetCache(String Key)
{
if (Key == null || !allowCache)
{
return null;
}
try
{
String Key_ = Key;
if (cache.Contains(Key_))
{
return (IEnumerable)cache.Get(Key_);
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
return null;
}
}
public void ClearCache(string key)
{
AddCache(key, null);
}
public bool AddCache(String Key, IEnumerable data, CacheItemPolicy cacheItemPolicy = null)
{
if (!allowCache) return true;
try
{
if (Key == null)
{
return false;
}
if (cacheItemPolicy == null)
{
cacheItemPolicy = defaultCacheItemPolicy;
}
String Key_ = Key;
lock (Key_)
{
return cache.Add(Key_, data, cacheItemPolicy);
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
private void CachedItemRemovedCallback(CacheEntryRemovedArguments arguments)
{
String strLog = String.Concat("Reason: ", arguments.RemovedReason.ToString(), " | Key-Name: ", arguments.CacheItem.Key, " | Value-Object: ", arguments.CacheItem.Value.ToString());
LogManager.Instance.Info(strLog);
}
}

I use two classes. First one the cache core object:
public class Cacher<TValue>
where TValue : class
{
#region Properties
private Func<TValue> _init;
public string Key { get; private set; }
public TValue Value
{
get
{
var item = HttpRuntime.Cache.Get(Key) as TValue;
if (item == null)
{
item = _init();
HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(Key, item);
}
return item;
}
}
#endregion
#region Constructor
public Cacher(string key, Func<TValue> init)
{
Key = key;
_init = init;
}
#endregion
#region Methods
public void Refresh()
{
HttpRuntime.Cache.Remove(Key);
}
#endregion
}
Second one is list of cache objects:
public static class Caches
{
static Caches()
{
Languages = new Cacher<IEnumerable<Language>>("Languages", () =>
{
using (var context = new WordsContext())
{
return context.Languages.ToList();
}
});
}
public static Cacher<IEnumerable<Language>> Languages { get; private set; }
}

I will say implementing Singleton on this persisting data issue can be a solution for this matter in case you find previous solutions much complicated
public class GPDataDictionary
{
private Dictionary<string, object> configDictionary = new Dictionary<string, object>();
/// <summary>
/// Configuration values dictionary
/// </summary>
public Dictionary<string, object> ConfigDictionary
{
get { return configDictionary; }
}
private static GPDataDictionary instance;
public static GPDataDictionary Instance
{
get
{
if (instance == null)
{
instance = new GPDataDictionary();
}
return instance;
}
}
// private constructor
private GPDataDictionary() { }
} // singleton

HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert("subjectlist", subjectlist);

You can also try and use the caching built into ASP MVC:
Add the following attribute to the controller method you'd like to cache:
[OutputCache(Duration=10)]
In this case the ActionResult of this will be cached for 10 seconds.
More on this here

Does a singleton need to be refreshed with data from webservice?

I have a singleton provider, where the main function is to retrieve an object from a webservice, and cache depending on the webservice cache headers response. This object will be accessed quite a lot. My question is when the data in the webservice changes, will any subsequent call to the singleton automatically be reflected?
public class ConfigurationProvider
{
#region Private Member Variables
private static readonly Lazy<ConfigurationProvider> _instance = new Lazy<ConfigurationProvider>(() => new ConfigurationProvider());
private static readonly HttpCache _cache = new HttpCache();
#endregion
#region Constructors
private ConfigurationProvider()
{
}
#endregion
#region Public Properties
public static ConfigurationProvider Instance
{
get { return _instance.Value; }
}
public ShowJsonResponse Configuration
{
get
{
// Try and get the configurations from webservice and add to cache
var cacheExpiry = 0;
return _cache.GetAndSet(WebApiConstant.ProxyCacheKeys.ShowJsonKey, ref cacheExpiry, () => GetConfiguration(ref cacheExpiry));
}
}
#endregion
#region Private Methods
private ShowJsonResponse GetConfiguration(ref int cacheExpiry)
{
var httpClient = new HttpClient();
try
{
var response = httpClient.GetAsync(WebApiConstant.Configuration.WebserviceUrl).Result;
if (response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
{
var showResponse = response.Content.ReadAsAsync<ShowJsonResponse>().Result;
if (response.Headers.CacheControl.Public && response.Headers.CacheControl.MaxAge.HasValue)
{
cacheExpiry = response.Headers.CacheControl.MaxAge.Value.Seconds;
}
// TODO: Remove when finished testing
// Default to 60 seconds for testing
cacheExpiry = 20;
return showResponse;
}
}
catch (HttpRequestException ex)
{
}
cacheExpiry = 0;
return null;
}
#endregion
}
The HttpCache class is just a wrapper around HttpRuntime Cache. The GetAndSet method just tries to retrieve the cache object and sets it if not found.
public override T GetAndSet<T>(string key, ref int duration, Func<T> method)
{
var data = _cache == null ? default(T) : (T) _cache[key];
if (data == null)
{
data = method();
if (duration > 0 && data != null)
{
lock (sync)
{
_cache.Insert(key, data, null, DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(duration), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration);
}
}
}
return data;
}
Usage example:
ConfigurationProvider.Instance.Configuration.Blah
Is there any perceived benefit to using the singleton pattern in this scenario, or instantiate the class regularly would be ok?

I think that the singleton pattern fits better in your case, and you won't need the object instance as well. Are you taking care of concurrency inside your HttpCache wrapper? It's important in order to avoid that concurrent threads could make multiple WS requests when two or more access the cache object at the same time or before the WS request returns.
I would suggest you to use the double lock/check pattern:
public override T GetAndSet<T>(string key, ref int duration, Func<T> method) {
var data = _cache == null ? default(T) : (T) _cache[key];
if (data == null) { //check
lock (sync) { //lock
//this avoids that a waiting thread reloads the configuration again
data = _cache == null ? default(T) : (T) _cache[key];
if (data == null) { //check again
data = method();
if (duration > 0 && data != null) {
_cache.Insert(key, data, null, DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(duration), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration);
}
}
}
}
return data;
}