What are the ramifications of not calling .Dispose() on an OrganizationServiceProxy object?
Sometimes, during testing, code crashes before the object can be disposed; does this mean that a service channel is left open for all eternity?
I have the same question about OrganizationServiceContext, which I had not been disposing until reading this today.
/* Synchronizes with CRM * */
public class CRMSync
{
[ThreadStatic] // ThreadStatic ensures that each thread gets a copy of these fields
private static OrganizationServiceProxy service;
[ThreadStatic]
private static Context linq;
/* Tries to connect to CRM and return false if failure - credentials arguments */
private bool Connect(string username = #"username", string password = "password", string uri = #"orgUrl/XRMServices/2011/Organization.svc")
{
try
{
var cred = new ClientCredentials();
cred.UserName.UserName = username;
cred.UserName.Password = password;
service = new OrganizationServiceProxy(new Uri(uri), null, cred, null);
service.EnableProxyTypes(); // this has to happen to allow LINQ early bound queries
linq = new Context(service);
var who = new Microsoft.Crm.Sdk.Messages.WhoAmIRequest(); // used to test the connection
var whoResponse = (Microsoft.Crm.Sdk.Messages.WhoAmIResponse)service.Execute(who); // this fails if not connected
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Log(e.Message); // Write to Event Log
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
Is there another way to use the same OrganizationServiceContext and OrganizationServiceProxy in multiple methods?
I plan to use this destructor to dispose the OrganizationServiceProxy and OrganizationServiceContext:
~CRMSync()
{
if (service != null)
service.Dispose();
if(linq!=null)
linq.Dispose();
}
EDIT
This is the method that is called by the service OnStart
/* Called by CRMAUX.OnStart when it is time to start the service */
public async void Start()
{
this.ProcessCSVFiles(); // Creates a ThreadPool thread that processes some CSV files
this.ProcessCases(); // Imports cases into CRM from a db (on this thread)
var freq = 0;
ConfigurationManager.RefreshSection("appSettings");
var parse = int.TryParse(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Frequency"], out freq);
await System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Delay((parse) ? freq * 1000 * 60 : 15000 * 60); // 15 minutes default or user defined
Start(); // Start again after the wait above
}
This is the Windows service
public partial class CRMAUX : ServiceBase
{
private CRMSync crmSync;
public CRMAUX()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
ConfigurationManager.RefreshSection("userSettings"); // Get the current config file so that the cached one is not useds
if (TestConfigurationFile())
{
crmSync = new CRMSync();
Thread main = new Thread(crmSync.Start);
main.IsBackground = true;
main.Start();
}
else //The configuration file is bad
{
Stop(); // inherited form ServiceBase
return;
}
}
protected override void OnStop()
{
}
/* Checks the configuration file for the necessary keys */
private bool TestConfigurationFile()...
}
The OrganizationServiceProxy is a wrapper around a WCF Channel which utilises unmanaged resources (sockets etc.).
A class (our proxy) that implements IDisposable is essentially stating that it will be accessing unmanaged resources and you should therefore explicitly tell it when you're finished with it rather than just allowing it to go out of scope. This will allow it to release the handles to those resources and free them up for use elsewhere. Unfortunately our code isn't the only thing running on the server!
Unmanaged resources are finite and expensive (SQL connections are the classic example). If your code executes correctly but you don't explicitly call dispose then the clean up of those resources will be non-deterministic which is a fancy way of saying the garbage collector will only call dispose on those managed objects "eventually", which will as stated in turn clean up the unmanaged resources they're holding onto. This will hurt scalability of your application and any other services running on the same hardware that might be in contention with you for those resources. That's the best case scenario, if an exception occurs at any point in the stack subsequent to those resources being acquired they will not be released, ergo a memory leak and fewer resources available for use elsewhere.
Wrapping your code in a using statement is syntactic sugar as this compiles down to the proxy being wrapped in a try/finally with the dispose being called in the finally.
In terms of using the proxy/context across multiple methods you should take a look at the Unit of Work pattern. The OrganizationServiceContext is exactly that, something that you apply changes to over the course of a request (likely across multiple method calls) and then submit to the datastore (CRM) at the end when done, in our case using context.SaveChanges().
Where are you using this code as I'm curious to know what you're looking to achieve with the use of the [ThreadStatic] attribute? If it's within an IIS hosted application I don't think you'll see any benefit as you don't manage the thread pool so the proxy still only has a lifetime matching the HttpRequest. If this is the case there are several better ways of managing the lifetime of these objects, dependency injection frameworks and a HttpRequest lifetime behaviour being the obvious one.
If your app crashes, the operating system will automatically reclaim all your resources, i.e. close all network ports, files etc. So there's nothing kept open forever. Of course, on the server side something unexpected can happen if it is not handled properly and the app crashes in the middle of a request. But that's what transactions are for, such that the state of the server data is always consistent.
Related
The MSDN documentation says
The Framework caches SSL sessions as they are created and attempts to reuse a cached session for a new request, if possible. When attempting to reuse an SSL session, the Framework uses the first element of ClientCertificates (if there is one), or tries to reuse an anonymous sessions if ClientCertificates is empty.
How can I disable this caching?
At the moment I am experiencing a problem with a reconnect to a server (i.e., the first connection works good, but at attempt to reconnect the servers breaks the session). Restarting the application helps (but of course only for the first connection attempt). I assume the problem root is caching.
I've checked the packets with a sniffer, the difference is at just single place only at Client Hello messages:
First connection to the server (successful):
Second connection attempt (no program restart, failed):
The difference seems to be just the session identifier.
P.S. I'd like to avoid using 3rd-party SSL clients. Is there a reasonable solution?
This is a translation of this question from ru.stackoverflow
Caching is handled inside SecureChannel - internal class that wraps SSPI and used by SslStream. I don't see any points inside that you can use to disable session caching for client connections.
You can clear cache between connections using reflection:
var sslAssembly = Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof(SslStream));
var sslSessionCacheClass = sslAssembly.GetType("System.Net.Security.SslSessionsCache");
var cachedCredsInfo = sslSessionCacheClass.GetField("s_CachedCreds", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Static);
var cachedCreds = (Hashtable)cachedCredsInfo.GetValue(null);
cachedCreds.Clear();
But it's very bad practice. Consider to fix server side.
So I solved this problem a bit differently. I really didn't like the idea of reflecting out this private static method to dump the cache because you don't really know what you're getting into by doing so; you're basically circumventing encapsulation and that could cause unforeseen problems. But really, I was worried about race conditions where I dump the cache and before I send the request, some other thread comes in and establishes a new session so then my first thread inadvertently hijacks that session. Bad news... anyway, here's what I did.
I stopped to think about whether or not there was a way to sort of isolate the process and then an Android co-worker of mine recalled the availability of AppDomains. We both agreed that spinning one up should allow the Tcp/Ssl call to run, isolated from everything else. This would allow the caching logic to remain intact without causing conflicts between SSL sessions.
Basically, I had originally written my SSL client to be internal to a separate library. Then within that library, I had a public service act as a proxy/mediator to that client. In the application layer, I wanted the ability to switch between services (HSM services, in my case) based on the hardware type, so I wrapped that into an adapter and interfaced that to be used with a factory. Ok, so how is that relevant? Well it just made it easier to do this AppDomain thing cleanly, without forcing this behavior any other consumer of the public service (the proxy/mediator I spoke of). You don't have to follow this abstraction, I just like to share good examples of abstraction whenever I find them :)
Now, in the adapter, instead of calling the service directly, I basically create the domain. Here is the ctor:
public VCRklServiceAdapter(
string hostname,
int port,
IHsmLogger logger)
{
Ensure.IsNotNullOrEmpty(hostname, nameof(hostname));
Ensure.IsNotDefault(port, nameof(port), failureMessage: $"It does not appear that the port number was actually set (port: {port})");
Ensure.IsNotNull(logger, nameof(logger));
ClientId = Guid.NewGuid();
_logger = logger;
_hostname = hostname;
_port = port;
// configure the domain
_instanceDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain(
$"vcrypt_rkl_instance_{ClientId}",
null,
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetupInformation);
// using the configured domain, grab a command instance from which we can
// marshall in some data
_rklServiceRuntime = (IRklServiceRuntime)_instanceDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap(
typeof(VCServiceRuntime).Assembly.FullName,
typeof(VCServiceRuntime).FullName);
}
All this does is creates a named domain from which my actual service will run in isolation. Now, most articles that I came across on how to actually execute within the domain sort of over-simplify how it works. The examples typically involve calling myDomain.DoCallback(() => ...); which isn't wrong, but trying to get data in and out of that domain will likely become problematic as serialization will likely stop you dead in your tracks. Simply put, objects that are instantiated outside of DoCallback() are not the same objects when called from inside of DoCallback since they were created outside of this domain (see object marshalling). So you'll likely get all kinds of serialization errors. This isn't a problem if running the entire operation, input and output and all can occur from inside myDomain.DoCallback() but this is problematic if you need to use external parameters and return something across this AppDomain back to the originating domain.
I came across a different pattern here on SO that worked out for me and solved this problem. Look at _rklServiceRuntime = in my sample ctor. What this is doing is actually asking the domain to instantiate an object for you to act as a proxy from that domain. This will allow you to marshall some objects in and out of it. Here is my implemenation of IRklServiceRuntime:
public interface IRklServiceRuntime
{
RklResponse Run(RklRequest request, string hostname, int port, Guid clientId, IHsmLogger logger);
}
public class VCServiceRuntime : MarshalByRefObject, IRklServiceRuntime
{
public RklResponse Run(
RklRequest request,
string hostname,
int port,
Guid clientId,
IHsmLogger logger)
{
Ensure.IsNotNull(request, nameof(request));
Ensure.IsNotNullOrEmpty(hostname, nameof(hostname));
Ensure.IsNotDefault(port, nameof(port), failureMessage: $"It does not appear that the port number was actually set (port: {port})");
Ensure.IsNotNull(logger, nameof(logger));
// these are set here instead of passed in because they are not
// serializable
var clientCert = ApplicationValues.VCClientCertificate;
var clientCerts = new X509Certificate2Collection(clientCert);
using (var client = new VCServiceClient(hostname, port, clientCerts, clientId, logger))
{
var response = client.RetrieveDeviceKeys(request);
return response;
}
}
}
This inherits from MarshallByRefObject which allows it to cross AppDomain boundaries, and has a single method that takes your external parameters and executes your logic from within the domain that instantiated it.
So now back to the service adapter: All the service adapters has to do now is call _rklServiceRuntime.Run(...) and feed in the necessary, serializable parameters. Now, I just create as many instances of the service adapter as I need and they all run in their own domain. This works for me because my SSL calls are small and brief and these requests are made inside of an internal web service where instancing requests like this is very important. Here is the complete adapter:
public class VCRklServiceAdapter : IRklService
{
private readonly string _hostname;
private readonly int _port;
private readonly IHsmLogger _logger;
private readonly AppDomain _instanceDomain;
private readonly IRklServiceRuntime _rklServiceRuntime;
public Guid ClientId { get; }
public VCRklServiceAdapter(
string hostname,
int port,
IHsmLogger logger)
{
Ensure.IsNotNullOrEmpty(hostname, nameof(hostname));
Ensure.IsNotDefault(port, nameof(port), failureMessage: $"It does not appear that the port number was actually set (port: {port})");
Ensure.IsNotNull(logger, nameof(logger));
ClientId = Guid.NewGuid();
_logger = logger;
_hostname = hostname;
_port = port;
// configure the domain
_instanceDomain = AppDomain.CreateDomain(
$"vc_rkl_instance_{ClientId}",
null,
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetupInformation);
// using the configured domain, grab a command instance from which we can
// marshall in some data
_rklServiceRuntime = (IRklServiceRuntime)_instanceDomain.CreateInstanceAndUnwrap(
typeof(VCServiceRuntime).Assembly.FullName,
typeof(VCServiceRuntime).FullName);
}
public RklResponse GetKeys(RklRequest rklRequest)
{
Ensure.IsNotNull(rklRequest, nameof(rklRequest));
var response = _rklServiceRuntime.Run(
rklRequest,
_hostname,
_port,
ClientId,
_logger);
return response;
}
/// <summary>
/// Releases unmanaged and - optionally - managed resources.
/// </summary>
public void Dispose()
{
AppDomain.Unload(_instanceDomain);
}
}
Notice the dispose method. Don't forget to unload the domain. This service implements IRklService which implements IDisposable, so when I use it, it used with a using statement.
This seems a bit contrived, but it's really not and now the logic will be run on it's own domain, in isolation, and thus the caching logic remains intact but non-problematic. Much better than meddling with the SSLSessionCache!
Please forgive any naming inconsistencies as I was sanitizing the actual names quickly after writing the post.. I hope this helps someone!
I have a very interesting scenario where I would like a class to inform another entity it has been destroyed; however, its not doing what I want it too.
The Problem
The deconstructor, for some reason does not do what its supposed to do.
The Question
Why is the destructor not being invoked and make sure that it does do its necessary clean up.
The Code
So here we have the informer ~
class Connection
{
public const int Port = 50000;// Can be any range between 49152 and 65536
//Teh Constructor
public Boolean Connect()
{
//SetInformation
Information.Id = 545;
using (var WebServ = new ClientSDKSoapClient("ClientSDKSoap"))
{
ContinueConnection.WaitOne();
WebServ.ClientLogin(Information);
}
return true;
}
~Connection()
{
using (var WebServ = new ClientSDKSoapClient("ClientSDKSoap"))
{
WebServ.ClientLogout(Information);
}
}
}
Additional Information
I want the web service to record if the Connection Class is destroyed for any given reason.
When the client is connecting, it works perfectly. The Web Service records every method called from it. If I call ClientLogout explicitly, it will work.
I am aware I can implement IDisposable; however, this object is not intended to be used within the lifetime of one method. In fact, its intended for use for the entire duration of the program and the failure of this object basically results in the failure of the entire project. (Although I suppose main IS a method...)
I need to release a network connection; however, its not in this program, its in another program and unless ClientLogout is called, it won't be released.
My Research
Microsoft says that you should use the deconstructor for the release of unmanaged resources making an explicit reference to network connections. This ones got my quite stumped.
I think you should implement a Dispose pattern for your Connection class, rather than relying on an obscure deconstructor metaphor. This would be the "canonical" way to do it.
public class Connection : IDisposable // <== Inherit from IDisposable interface
{
public const int Port = 50000;// Can be any range between 49152 and 65536
private SomeType webserv; // Use whatever real type is appropriate here.
private Information information = new Information(); // or whatever
// This is a real constructor.
public Connection()
{
//SetInformation
information.Id = 545;
webServ = new ClientSDKSoapClient("ClientSDKSoap"))
webserv.ContinueConnection.WaitOne();
webServ.ClientLogin(information);
}
// Implement IDisposable interface
public void Dispose()
{
webServ.ClientLogout(information);
}
}
And then use it thusly
using (var connection = new Connection())
{
// Use the connection here.
}
The client will be logged out when you leave the using block.
Microsoft says that you should use the deconstructor for the release of unmanaged resources making an explicit reference to network connections. This ones got my quite stumped.
The docs here are misleading. It really just means you need a finalizer somewhere in your object inheritance chain, to ensure that any unmanaged resources are appropriately cleaned up. But you only need this finalizer once for the entire inheritance tree, at the level where the unmanaged resource is first allocated.
As an example, you do not need a destructor or finalizer if you build a class for a data access layer to wrap the SqlConnection type, because the core SqlConnection type already has one. What you should do, though, is implement IDisposable and write code to ensure prompt disposal, so the finalizer on your SqlConnection will be called sooner, rather than later. But if you were to build a whole new database engine that competes with Sql Server, MySql, Oracle, Access, and the like, and were implementing the ADO.Net provider for this new database engine, then would need to write a finalizer for your connection type, because none exists yet.
In this case, ClientSDKSoap type already has a destructor; you do not need to write another.
We've run into a resource management problem that we've been struggling with for several weeks now and while we finally have a solution, it still seems weird to me.
We have a significant amount of interop code we've developed against a legacy system, which exposes a C API. One of the many peculiarities of this system is that (for reasons unknown), the "environment", which appears to be process-scoped must be initialized prior to the API being consumed. However, it can only be initialized once and must be "shutdown" once you're finished with it.
We were originally using a singleton pattern to accomplish this but as we're consuming this system inside an IIS hosted web service, our AppDomain will occasionally be recycled, leading to "orphaned" environments that leak memory. Since finalization and (apparently) even IIS-recycling is non-deterministic and hard to detect in all cases, we've switched to a disposal+ref counting pattern that seems to work well. However, doing reference counting manually feels weird and I'm sure there's a better approach.
Any thoughts on managing a static global disposable resource in an environment like this?
Here's the rough structure of the environment management:
public class FooEnvironment : IDisposable
{
private bool _disposed;
private static volatile int _referenceCount;
private static readonly object InitializationLock = new object();
public FooEnvironment()
{
lock(InitilizationLock)
{
if(_referenceCount == 0)
{
SafeNativeMethods.InitFoo();
_referenceCount++;
}
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if(_disposed)
return;
lock(InitilizationLock)
{
_referenceCount--;
if(_referenceCount == 0)
{
SafeNativeMethods.TermFoo();
}
}
_disposed = true;
}
}
public class FooItem
{
public void DoSomething()
{
using(new FooEnvironment())
{
// environment is now initialized (count == 1)
NativeMethods.DoSomething();
// superfluous here but for our purposes...
using(new FooEnvironment())
{
// environment is initialized (count == 2)
NativeMethods.DoSomethingElse();
}
// environment is initialized (count == 1)
}
// environment is unloaded
}
}
I'm jumping in feet first here as there are a lot of unknowns about you particular code base, but I'm wondering is there is any mileage in a session based approach? You could have a (thread safe) session factory singleton that is responsible for ensuring only one environment is initialised and that environment is disposed appropriately by binding it to events on the ASP.NET AppDomain and/or similar. You would need to bake this session model into your API so that all client first established a session before making any calls. Apologies for the vagueness of this answer. If you can provide some example code perhaps I could give a more specific/detail answer.
One approach you might want to consider is to create an isolated AppDomain for your unmanaged component. In this way it won't be orphaned when an IIS-hosted AppDomain is recycled.
I'm writing a program using the Managed WiFi API. Here's how I get all the networks in range:
void UpdateNetworks()
{
networks = new List<Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork>();
WlanClient client = new WlanClient();
foreach(WlanClient.WlanInterface iface in client.Interfaces)
{
Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork[] nets = iface.GetAvailableNetworkList(0);
foreach(Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork net in nets)
networks.Add(net);
}
}
The problem is that after 18 calls to this method I can no longer connect:
(0x80004005): An attempt was made to
establish a session to a network
server, but there are already too many
sessions established to that server.
Here's the constructor that's throwing the exception:
public WlanClient()
{
Wlan.ThrowIfError(
Wlan.WlanOpenHandle(Wlan.WLAN_CLIENT_VERSION_XP_SP2, IntPtr.Zero, out negotiatedVersion, out clientHandle));
try
{
Wlan.WlanNotificationSource prevSrc;
wlanNotificationCallback = new Wlan.WlanNotificationCallbackDelegate(OnWlanNotification);
Wlan.ThrowIfError(
Wlan.WlanRegisterNotification(clientHandle, Wlan.WlanNotificationSource.All, false, wlanNotificationCallback, IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, out prevSrc));
}
catch
{
Wlan.WlanCloseHandle(clientHandle, IntPtr.Zero);
throw;
}
}
I believe this is because the client never closes the connections it opens. How do I close them explicitly? There's handle closing in the catch block, but it requires access to the client's private parts.
I have the same problem.
I tried Mr Joe White solution but I received an error that wlanClient cannot be converted to System.IDisposable.
Since this problem is related to disposal of WlanClient instances, I only defined 1 instance as class member and used it so many times in method [void UpdateNetworks()]. I did not receive any error.
Remove line
WlanClient client = new WlanClient();
from your method and define it in your class. like the following:
public partial class frm_main : Form
{
private WlanClient client = new WlanClient();
private void UpdateNetworks()
{
var networks = new List<Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork>();
foreach (WlanClient.WlanInterface iface in client.Interfaces)
{
Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork[] nets = iface.GetAvailableNetworkList(0);
foreach (Wlan.WlanAvailableNetwork net in nets)
networks.Add(net);
}
MessageBox.Show(networks.Count.ToString());
}
}
Reference: Managed WiFi error
Since you're seeing problems only after a certain number of iterations, the problem is likely resource exhaustion of some sort, which sounds like resources aren't getting cleaned up in a timely manner.
From the comments above, it sounds like you're not disposing your WlanClient instances, which may be part (or all) of the problem. I can understand why you're not disposing them, though, because they don't give you any obvious way to do so. This seems like a really problematic design on their part. There are all kinds of design guidelines that say a class like this should give you either a public Dispose method or a public Close method, but even though they have both those methods, they deliberately made them both private.
But the class does implement IDisposable, so you can still clean it up by adding a using block:
using (var wlanClient = new WlanClient()) {
....
} // wlanClient will be disposed when flow leaves the block
This will make sure all of the object's resources get cleaned up at the moment flow leaves the using block (even if flow is leaving because there was an exception). Your connections will be closed, your unmanaged memory released, and whatever else needs to happen.
I'm using a 3rd party web service in my ASP.NET application. Calls to the 3rd party web service have to be synchronized, but ASP.NET is obviously multi-threaded and multiple page requests could be made that result in simultaneous calls to the 3rd party web service. Calls to the web service are encapsulated in a custom object. My thought is to store the object in an application variable and use the C# lock keyword to force synchronized use of it.
I'm nervous, because I'm new to multi threaded concepts and I've read that you shouldn't lock a public object (which my application variable effectively is). I've also read that if the locked block of code fails (which it could if the web service fails), then it could destabilize the app domain and bring down the application.
I should mention that the 3rd party web service is rarely used in my website and it's going to be rare that 2 requests to it are made at the same time.
Here's a rough code sample of how I'd make calls to the web service:
ThirdPartWebService objWebService = Application["ThirdPartWebService"] As ThirdPartWebService;
lock (objWebService)
{
objWebService.CallThatNeedsToBeSynchronized();
}
You should create a private static readonly object _lock = new object(); in the class that makes the webservice calls, and use that as a lock. Since the object is static there will only be one of them throughout all of your application, a Singleton object if you wish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern)
public class MyWebServiceWrapper
{
private static readonly object _lock = new object();
public void CallWebService()
{
lock(_lock)
{
var objWebService = (ThirdPartWebService)Application["ThirdPartWebService"];
objWebService.CallThatNeedsToBeSynchronized();
}
}
}
If your class that makes the WebService call doesn't do anything else, you can also just make a lock on this (lock(this)). Just remember, that this will mean, that if you have several methods, the call to one method will block all the other methods as well, which is why you normally shouldn't lock this.
If it is vital you should only have a single call to the service at any time I recommend you write your own Windows Service. This depends on how much fault tolerance you want.
Let's say for example you make a call to the web service, but then the application pool is recycled. When a new request comes in it would be handled by a new instance of your application which could then make the call to the web service (Even if the other instance is running).
You could pass this off to a windows a service, then use a polling mechanism from the client to check if the service has finished (Client would ask IIS are you done, IIS would look for some indication from windows service that it was done). This approach will avoid locking anything in IIS, and you won't waste critical resources such as threads in your thread pool waiting on a third party service.
You should never lock on a single resource in your web application...it's just too risky.
Edit
Another option is to use the Monitor object directly:
if (System.Threading.Monitor.TryEnter(syncObj,10))
{
try
{
//CallWebService
}
finally
{
System.Threading.Monitor.Exit(syncObj);
}
}
else
{
//Tell Client they are still waiting
}
TryEnter will block until a lock is made or 10 milliseconds has passed. You could then in your timeout tell the client they need to retry. You could then have your client code decide if it should reissue the request. You could also use a semaphore or mutex (forget which one is more appropiate here). But it would assuming you have permissions to use them, give you something you can lock on at the machine level which would prevent the app recycling use case.
You can lock on a static shared object. This is a common way to use lock´s in .Net. By using a static object you know it will be shared among all threads, and the lock is ensured.
As for making the app unstable if the call fails, that has to be due to the call not disposing properly. By using the "using" statement you are ensuring that dispose is called at the end of the call. Read this SO thread on why/why not you should dispose a web service regarding performance.
static readonly object _lockObj = new object();
...
lock( _lockObj )
{
ThirdPartWebService objWebService = Application["ThirdPartWebService"] As ThirdPartWebService;
objWebService.CallThatNeedsToBeSynchronized();
}
lock() will not prevent multiple call to your webservice. It will only ensure that no thread is executing code block within lock() {} at the same time.
So the the question is what does that webservice do?
1) Performs some action on third party (updates their DB with some values you supply?)
You can do as you've yourself suggested. Though I would say that if their service cannot handle simultaneous calls, then they should fix it. Thats really not your problem to worry about.
2) It queries and returns some data for your use.
In this case lock is useless unless you plan on caching the result of the call.
var cachedValue = ReadValueFromCache();
if (cachedValue != null)
return cachedValue;
lock (objWebService)
{
// yes you need to do it second time inside the lock
cachedValue = ReadValueFromCache();
if (cachedValue != null)
return cachedValue;
cachedValue = objWebService.CallThatNeedsToBeSynchronized();
SaveValueToCache(cachedValue);
}
return cachedValue;
How you implement the cache is kinda secondary. It maybe web cache object or just a static variable.