We're writing a WCF service which will have to manage external client petitions, on those petitions we will:
Connect to another external service (not under our control) and validate a signature to ensure the identity of the caller.
Make several operations on our environment.
Finally, if everything is ok, call to another external service (again not under our control) and obtain a registry number to send to the client as a response.
From my point of view, the external services calls add too much entropy to allow all process in only one operation, there are lots of possible scenarios out of our reach that can finish with a timeout on the final client.
IMHO we should try to write different operations to manage each of the different parts (generating a secure token to carry authentication during 2nd and 3rd steps) so we can avoid an scenario where all the processes works fine but takes too much time and the client stops waiting for the response, generating a timeout.
My opinion is not shared for other members of the team, who wants to do all in a single operation.
Is there a best practice for this type of scenarios?
Will be better to use different operations or won't it have impact at all?
You can leverage of callback contract. Create oneway operation and let client invoke service and order all work to be done. Within method save client's reference and once all the long-running work is done, check if client's reference is not null so as to make sure client has not been closed. If not then invoce callback operation specified in callback contract. The pros of such as way out is that client does not keep waiting for the result but he is informed when result is obtained and ready to be provided. I refer you to this post.
Related
I am unsure of whether this is possible and have conducted a handful of quick searches on the web and I don't think it is but here goes.
I have a web service (old school .asmx) which retrieves a list of items from a database. I want my client app to be notified if there are any items to be processed INSTEAD of the client app every so often making a request to the web service. Is this possible?
I know this is possible via WCF (duplex communication) however due to complications I can't use that approach.
Oops I just realised that I would also require the web service to poll itself or get something to call it asynchronously? Don't think this is a good solution...
Thanks in advance, Onam.
It is either polling (initiated by the client) or by maintaining a session like Exchange, Imap etc does. Classic .asmx communication is initiated by the client. Therefore it provides no events.
You can implement duplex yourself by developing a callback service hosted by your client. Your webservice can then invoke the callback client. However you must find a good solution to register and unregister the clients to the webservice.
Actually, I would not be a good idea to let the database invoke the items on each poll. You could cache the results in the logic layer referenced by the webservice. If you prefer the classic .asmx approach, you can create a bool method that checks whether new data is in the cache that is implemented by the logic. This would reduce the performance inpact, and then it won't be that bad to poll the server.
I have a c# WCF web service which is a server and I do have 2 clients one is java client and another is c++ client. I want both the clients to run at the same time. The scenario I have and am unable to figure it out is:
My java client will be making a call to the WCF web service and the processing time might take around 10 mins, meanwhile I want my c++ client to make a call to the web service and the get the response back. But right now I am just able to make a call to web service using c++ client when the java client request is being processed. I am not getting the response back for c++ client request until java client request is completed.
Can any one please suggest me how to make this work parallel. Thanks in advance.
Any "normal" WCF service can most definitely handle more than one client request at any given time.
It all depends on your settings for InstanceContextMode:
PerSession means, each session gets a copy of the service class to handle a number of requests (from that same client)
PerCall means, each request gets a fresh copy of the service class to handle the request (and it's disposed again after handling the call)
Single means, you have a singleton - just one copy of your service class.
If you have a singleton - you need to ask yourself: why? By default, PerCall is the recommended setting, and that should easily support quite a few requests at once.
See Understanding Instance Context Mode for a more thorough explanation.
Use
[ServiceBehavior( ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Multiple )]
attribute over your service class. More on this for example here:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/89858/WCF-Concurrency-Single-Multiple-and-Reentrant-and
This is peripheral to your question but have you considered asynchronous callbacks from the method that takes 10+ minutes to return, and then having the process run in a separate thread? It's not really good practice to have a service call waiting 10 minutes synchronously, and might solve your problem, although the service should allow for multiple callers at once anyway (our WCF service takes thousands of simultaneous requests).
When you call a WCF you have a choice in either calling it synchronously or asynchronously. A synchronous call waits for the response to send back to the caller in the same operation. In the caller it would look like "myresult = svc.DoSomething()". With an asynchronous call, the caller gives the service a function to call when it completes but does not wait for the response. The caller doesn't block while waiting for the response and goes about its business.
Your callback will take DoSomethingCompletedEventArgs:
void myCallback(object sender, DoSomethingCompletedEventArgs e)
{
var myResult = e.Result;
//then use the result however you would have before.
}
You register the callback function like an event handler:
svc.DoSomethingCompleted+=myCallback;
then
svc.DoSomethingAsync(). Note there is no returned value in that statement; The service would execute myCallBack when it completes and pass the result. (All WCF calls from Silverlight have to be asynchronous but for other clients this restriction isn't there).
Here's a codeproject article that demonstrates a slightly different way in detail.
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/91528/How-to-Call-WCF-Services-Synchronously-and-Asynchr
This keeps the client from blocking during the 10+ minute process but doesn't really change the way the service itself functions.
Now the second part of what I was mentioning was firing off the 10+ minute process in a separate thread from inside the service. The service methods themselves should be very thin and just be calling functionality in other libraries. Functions that are going to take a long time should ideally be called in their own threads (say a backgroundworker, for which you register on the service side a callback when it completes) and have some sort of persistent system to keep track of their progress and any results that need to go back to the client. If it were me I would register the request for the process in a db and then update that db with its completion. The client would then periodically initiate a simple poll to see if the process was completed and get any results. You might be able to set up duplex binding to get notified when the process completes automatically but to be honest it's been a few years since I've done any duplex binding so I don't remember exactly how it works.
These topics are really too big for me to go into depth here. I would suggest researching multithreaded operations with the BackgroundWorker.
I can't deny the performance benefit of a duplex async call, but some things about makes me feel wary.
My concern is that given a client object instantiated, will WCF be able to tell which particular client service instance will receive the callback argument?
Can anyone tell me if this is a good idea? If not why not?
new DuplexChannelFactory<IServerWithCallback>(
new ClientService(),
new NetTcpBinding(),
new EndpointAddress("net.tcp://localhost:1234/"+Guid.NewGuid()))
If the virtual path above is reserved how can it be discarded. I want the client service lifetime to be fairly short. IE make a request and receive a response and when done receiving, kill it. How bad is the performance penalty in making the client service lifetime short as opposed to pooling it and keeping it alive longer.
The idea is to avoid timeout issue. When done receiving, sending, dispose ASAP. By convention - can't pass the client services around. If you need info, create a new one, simple - just like EF/L2S etc.
From inside the WCF service itself, how do I kill the session with the client. ie. I don't want the client ending the session - I know I can decorate my operation accordingly, but I want the service to terminate itself programmatically when certain conditions are met.
I can affix the port and forward accordingly to resolve any firewall issue, but what I'm worried about is if the client were to sit behind a load-balancer. How would the service know which particular server to call?
I think in the end Duplex services is simply another failed architecture from Microsoft. This is one of those things that looked really good on paper but just falls apart upon closer examination.
There are too many weaknesses:
1) Reliance on session to establish client listener by the server. This is session information is stored in memory. Hence the server itself cannot be load balanced. Or if it were load balanced you need to turn ip affinity on, but now if one of the servers is bombarded you can't simply add another one and expect all these sessions to automagically migrate over to the new server.
2) For each client sitting behind a router/firewall/loadbalancer, a new end point with specific port needs to be created. Otherwise the router will not be able to properly route the callback messages to the appropriate client. An alternative is to have a router that allows custom programming to redirect specific path to a particular server. Again a tall order. Or another way is for the client with the callback to host its own database and share data via a database <-- Might work in some situation where licensing fees is not an issue... but it introduces a lot of complexity and so onerous on the client plus it mixes the application and services layer together (which might be acceptable in some exceptional situation, but not on top of the huge setup cost)
3) All this basically says that duplex is practically useless. If you need call back then you will do well to setup a wcf host on the client end. It will be simpler and much more scalable. Plus there is less coupling between client and server.
The best duplex solution for scalable architecture is in the end not using one.
It will depend on how short you need the clients new'd up and how long they will last. Pooling would not be an option if you specifically need a new client each time, but if the clients keep doing the same thing why not have a pool of them waiting to be used, if they fault out recreate that same client again.
In reality in a callback scenario if the service is calling back to the client (really calling a function on the client) to pass information the service is now the client and vice versa. You can have the service that's making the callback .Close() the connection but it will be open until the GC can dispose of it, from my experience that can take longer than expected. So in short the client should be responsible (the client being the one making the call to something) for shutting itself down, or disconnecting, the service should only give back answers or take data from a client.
In duplex callbacks the service now calling back to the client will get the address of the client abstracted behind the duplexchannelfactory. If the service can't call back to the client I don't think there's much that can be done, you'd have to ensure the port that your clients are calling to the service is open to receive callbacks I would guess.
Im writing an application which transfers files using WCF. The transfers are done in segments so that they can be resumed after any unforeseen interruption.
My question concerns the use of the client side proxy, is it better to keep it open and reuse it to transfer each file segment or should I be reopening it each time I want to send something?
The reason to close a proxy as quickly as possible is the fact that you might be having a session in place which ties up system resources (netTcpBinding uses a transport-level session, wsHttpBinding can use security or reliability-based sessions).
But you're right - as long as a client proxy isn't in a faulted state, you can totally reuse it.
If you want to go one step further, and if you can share a common assembly with the service and data contracts between server and client, you could split up the client proxy creation into two steps:
create a ChannelFactory<IYourServiceContract> once and cache that - this is a very expensive and resource-intensive operation; since you need to make this a generic using your service contract (interface), you need to be able to share contracts between server and client
given that factory, you can create your channels using factory.CreateChannel() as needed - this operation is much less "heavy" and can be done quickly and over and over again
This is one possible optimization you could look into - given the scenario that you control both ends of the communication, and you can share the contract assembly between server and client.
You can reuse your WCF client proxy and that will make your client application faster, as proxy just will initialize once.
Creation of a new proxy takes up about 50-100 ms of time, if your system needs good scaling, it's quite a significant time.
When reusing the proxy, you have to be careful of its state and threading issues. Do not try to send data using a proxy that is already busy with sending data. (or receiving) You'll have terrible sleepless nights.
One way of reusing is, having a [ThreadStatic] private field for the proxy and testing its state & presence each time you need to send data. If a new thread was created, the thread static field will be null and you'll need to create a proxy. Assuming you have a simple threading model, this will keep the different threads from stepping on each other's toes and you'll have to worry only about the faulted state of the proxy.
When I first posted this question I had strong coupling between my web service and application controller where the controller needed to open multiple threads to the service and as it received back data it had to do a lot of processing on the returned data and merge it into one dataset. I did not like the fact that the client had to so much processing and merge the returned data before it was ready to be used and wanted to move that layer to the service and let the service open the asynchronous threads to the suppliers and merge the results before returning them to the client.
One challenge I had was that I could not wait till all threads were complete and results were merged, I had to start receiving data as it was available. That called me to implement an observer pattern on the service so that it would notify my application when new set of results are merged and ready to be used and send them to the application.
I was looking for how to do this using either on ASMX webservices or WCF and so far I have found implementing it using WCF but this thread is always open for suggestions and improvements.
OK the solution to my problem came from WCF
In addition to classic request-reply operation of ASMX web services, WCF supports additional operation types like; one-way calls, duplex callbacks and streaming.
Not too hard to guess, duplex callback was what I was looking for.
Duplex callbacks simply allow the service to do call backs to the client. A callback contract is defined on the server and client is required to provide the callback endpoint on every call. Then it is up to the service to decide when and how many times to use the callback reference.
Only bidirectiona-capable bindings support callback operations. WCF offers the WSDualHttpBinding to support callbacks over HTTP (Callback support also exists by NetNamedPipeBinding and NetTcpBinding as TCP and IPC protocols support duplex communication)
One very important thing to note here is that duplex callbacks are nonstandard and pure Microsoft feature. This is not creating a problem on my current task at hand as both my web service and application are running on Microsoft ASP.NET
Programming WCF Services gave me a good jump start on WCF. Being over 700 pages it delves deep into all WCF consepts and has a dedicated chapter on the Callback and other type of operations.
Some other good resources I found on the net are;
Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) Screencasts
MSDN Webcast: Windows Communication Foundation Top to Bottom
Web Service Software Factory
The Service Factory for WCF
This sounds like a perfect use case for Windows Workflow Foundation. You can easily create a workflow to get information from each supplier, then merge the results when ready. It's much cleaner, and WF will do all the async stuff for you.
I'm not so sure that duplex is needed here... IMO, a standard async call with a callback should be more than sufficient to get notification of data delivery.
What is the biggest problem? If you are talking about async etc, then usually we are talking about the time taken to get the data to the client. Is this due to sheer data volume? or complexity generating the data at the server?
If it is the data volume, then I can think of a number of ways of significantly improving performance - although most of them involve using DTO objects (not DataSet/DataTable, which seemed to be implied in the question). For example, protobuf-net significantly reduces the data volume and processing required to transfer data.
One of the ways to achieve this is by invoking your WS asynchronously (http://www.stardeveloper.com/articles/display.html?article=2001121901&page=1, http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2005/08/01/async_webservices.html), and then updating the GUI in the callback.
However, you could have timeout problems if the querying of data takes too long. For example, if one of the supplier's web site is down or very slow, this could mean that the whole query could fail. Maybe it would be better if your business logic on the client side does the merging instead of WS doing it.
Not sure if this solution fits your particular task, but anyway:
Add paging parameters to your WS API (int pageNumber, int pageSize, out int totalPages)
Add a short-living TTL cache that associates request details (maybe a hash value) with output data
When your application asks for the first page, return it as soon as it's ready and put the whole bunch of collected/merged data to cache so when the next page is required you may use what is already prepared.
But note that you won't get the most up-to-date data, configure cache reloading interval cautiously.
The absolute best way to archive in your scenario and technology would be having some kind of token between your web app / library against your web service and your controller needs to have a thread to check if there are new results etc. However please note that you will require to get the complete data back from your WS as it's merge can result in removed items from the initial response.
Or I still think that handling threads would be better from controller with the use of WCF Webservices