I'm working with an application, and I am able to make C# scripts to run in this environment. I can import DLLs of any kind into this environment. My problem is that I'd like to enable communication between these scripts. As the environment is controlled and I have no access to the source code of the application, I'm at a loss as to how to do this.
Things I've tried:
File I/O: Just writing the messages that I would like each to read in .txt files and having the other read it. Problem is that I need this scripts to run quite quickly and that took up too much time.
nServiceBus: I tried this, but I just couldn't get it to work in the environment that I'm dealing with. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that I can't get it done.
Does anyone know of a simple way to do this, that is also pretty fast?
Your method of interprocess communication should depend on how important it is that each message get processed.
For instance, if process A tells process B to, say, send an email to your IT staff saying that a server is down, it's pretty important.
If however you're streaming audio, individual messages (packets) aren't critical to the performance of the app, and can be dropped.
If the former, you should consider using persistent storage such as a database to store messages, and let each process poll the database to retrieve its own messages. In this way, if a process is terminated or loses communication with the other processes temporarily, it will be able to retrieve whatever messages it has missed when it starts up again.
The answer is simple;
Since you can import any DLL into the script you may create a custom DLL that will implement communication between the processes in any way you desire: shared memory, named pipe, TCP/UDP.
You could use a form of Interprocess Communication, even within the same process. Treat your scripts as separate processes, and communicate that way.
Named pipes could be a good option in this situation. They are very fast, and fairly easy to use in .NET 3.5.
Alternatively, if the scripts are loaded into a single AppDomain, you could use a static class or singleton as a communication service. However, if the scripts get loaded in isolation, this may not be possible.
Well, not knowing the details of your environment, there is not much I can really offer. You are using the term "C# scripts"...I am not exactly sure what that means, as C# is generally a compiled language.
If you are using normal C#, have you looked into WCF with Named Pipes? If your assemblies are running on the same physical machine, you should be able to easily and quickly create some WCF services hosted with the Named Pipe binding. Named pipes provide a simple, efficient, and quick message transfer mechanism in a local context. WCF itself is pretty easy to use, and is a native component of the .NET framework.
Since you already have the File I/O in place you might get enough speed by placing it on a RAM disk. If you are polling for changes today a FileSystemWatcher could help to get your communication more responsive.
You can use PipeStream. Which are fast than disk IO as they are done using main memory.
XMPP/Jabber is another appraoch take a look at jabber.net.
Another easy way is to open a TCP Socket on a predefined Port, connect to it from the other process and communicate that way.
Related
I've been working on an internal developer tool on and off for a few weeks now, but I'm running into an ugly stumbling block I haven't managed to find a good solution for. I'm hoping someone can offer some ideas or guidance on the best ways to use the existing frameworks in .NET.
Background: the purpose of this tool is to load multiple different types of log files (Windows Event Log, IIS, SQL trace, etc.) to the same database table so they can be sorted and examined together. My personal goal is to make the entire thing streamlined so that we only make a single pass and do not cache the entire log either in memory or to disk. This is important when log files reach hundreds of MB or into the GB range. Fast performance is good, but slow and unobtrusive (allowing you to work on something else in the meantime) is better than running faster but monopolizing the system in the process, so I've focused on minimizing RAM and disk usage.
I've iterated through a few different designs so far trying to boil it down to something simple. I want the core of the log parser--the part that has to interact with any outside library or file to actually read the data--to be as simple as possible and conform to a standard interface, so that adding support for a new format is as easy as possible. Currently, the parse method returns an IEnumerable<Item> where Item is a custom struct, and I use yield return to minimize the amount of buffering.
However, we quickly run into some ugly constraints: the libraries provided (generally by Microsoft) to process these file formats. The biggest and ugliest problem: one of these libraries only works in 64-bit. Another one (Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Trace TraceFile for SSMS logs) only works in 32-bit. As we all know, you can't mix and match 32- and 64-bit code. Since the entire point of this exercise is to have one utility that can handle any format, we need to have a separate child process (which in this case is handling the 32-bit-only portion).
The end result is that I need the 64-bit main process to start up a 32-bit child, provide it with the information needed to parse the log file, and stream the data back in some way that doesn't require buffering the entire contents to memory or disk. At first I tried using stdout, but that fell apart with any significant amount of data. I've tried using WCF, but it's really not designed to handle the "service" being a child of the "client", and it's difficult to get them synchronized backwards from how they want to work, plus I don't know if I can actually make them stream data correctly. I don't want to use a mechanism that opens up unsecured network ports or that could accidentally crosstalk if someone runs more than one instance (I want that scenario to work normally--each 64-bit main process would spawn and run its own child). Ideally, I want the core of the parser running in the 32-bit child to look the same as the core of a parser running in the 64-bit parent, but I don't know if it's even possible to continue using yield return, even with some wrapper in place to help manage the IPC. Is there any existing framework in .NET that makes this relatively easy?
WCF does have a P2P mode however if all your processes are local machine you are better off with IPC such as named pipes due to the latter running in Kernel Mode and does not have the messaging overhead of the former.
Failing that you could try COM which should not have a problem talking between 32 and 64 bit processes. - Tell me more
In case anyone stumbles across this, I'll post the solution that we eventually settled on. The key was to redefine the inter-process WCF service interface to be different from the intra-process IEnumerable interface. Instead of attempting to yield return across process boundaries, we stuck a proxy layer in between that uses an enumerator, so we can call a "give me an item" method over and over again. It's likely this has more performance overhead than a true streaming solution, since there's a method call for every item, but it does seem to get the job done, and it doesn't leak or consume memory.
We did follow Micky's suggestion of using named pipes, but still within WCF. We're also using named semaphores to coordinate the two processes, so we don't attempt to make service calls until the "child service" has finished starting up.
I essentially want to make an api for an application but I only want one instance of that dll to be running at one time.
So multiple applications also need to be able to use the DLL at the same time. As you would expect from a normal api.
However I want it to be the same instance of the dll that the different applications use. This is because of communication with hardware that I don't want to be able to overlap.
DLLs are usually loaded once per process, so if your application is guaranteed to only be running in single-instance mode, there's nothing else you have to do. Your single application instance will have only one loaded DLL.
Now, if you want to "share" a "single instance" of a DLL across applications, you will inevitably have to resort to a client-server architecture. Your DLL will have to be wrapped in a Windows Service, which would expose an HTTP (or WCF) API.
You can't do that as you intend to do. The best way to do this would be having a single process (a DLL is not a process) which receives and processes messages, and have your multiple clients use an API (this would be your DLL) that just sends messages to this process.
The intercommunication of those two processes (your single process and the clients sending or receiving the messages via your API) could be done in many ways, choose the one that suits you better (basically, any kind of client/server architecture, even if the clients and the server are running on the same hardware)
This is an XY-Problem type of question. Your actual requirement is serializing interactions with the underlying hardware, so they do not overlap. Perhaps this is what you should explicitly and specifically be asking about.
Your proposed solution is to have a DLL that is kind of an OS-wide singleton or something like that. This is actually what you are asking about; although it is still not the right approach, in my opinion. The OS is in charge of managing the lifetime of the DLL modules in each process. There are many aspects to this, but for one: most DLL instances are already being shared between every process (mostly code sections, resources and such - data, of course, is not shared by default).
To solve your actual problem, you would have to resort to multi-process synchronization techniques. In Windows, this works mostly through named kernel objects like mutexes, semaphores, events and such. Another approach would be to use IPC, as other folks have already mentioned in their respective answers, which then again would require in itself some kind of synchronization.
Maybe all this is already handled by that hardware's device driver. What would be the real scenarios in which overlapped interactions with the underlying hardware would have a negative impact on the applications that use your DLL?
To ensure you have loaded one DLL per machine, you would need to run a controlling assembly in separate AppDomain, then try creating named pipe for remoting (with IpcChannel) and claim hardware resources. IpcChannel will fail to create second time in the same environment. If you need high performance communication with your hardware, use remoting only for claiming and releasing resource by another assembly used by applications.
Mutex is one of solution for exclusive control of multiple processes.
***But Mutex will sometimes occur dead lock. Be careful if you use.
I am attempting to send player information from my Game to my network client to then be sent off to the server.
Currently the ClientNetwork -> ClientGame relationship is held with XML files. They read/write back and forth at very high speeds. If you use just one XML file for this trade, one will "hog" the file at times, making a kind of lag when one cannot read because the other is viciously writing and rewriting.
To fix this I have 2 of each of my XML files. If it cannot read one, it will read the other. In theory they should be using both of them, since it'd be a tradeoff from one to another. Not working up to par.
But my main problem is just the usage in general of XML is very sloppy, dozens of try-catch statements to make sure they're all happy (and my personal favorite, try catches within try catches -- WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER)
I am just curious of if there is a better way to be doing this. I need a static point of variables that can be accessed by both client side programs. I'm afraid someone is going to say databases...
I'd like to state for anyone who is looking into this as well and stumbled across this page that Shared Memory is awesome. Though I have to convert all strings to characters and then to bytes and read them one by one, in the whole it's ALOT better than dealing with things that cannot read/write the same file at the same time. If you wish to further understand it rather than just use it, go to this link, it explains a lot of the messaging varieties and how to use them.
Yes there is!
The term you are looking for is interprocess communication - communication between two processes on the same machine.
There are various methods which allow two processes on the same machine to communicate with each other, including:
Named pipes
Shared memory
Sockets
HTTP
Fortunately C# applications can simply use the WCF framework to perform IPC (interprocess communication) using one of the above, and let the WCF framework take care of the difficult bits! Here are a couple of guides to get you started (there are many more):
WCF Tutorial - Basic Interprocess Communication
Many to One Local IPC using WCF and NetNamedPipeBinding
Also, one of the neat things about WCF is that you can also use it to communicate between different machines simply by changing the "Transport" (i.e. the communication method) to one which works over a network, (e.g. HTTP).
If you are targetting .Net 2.0 then you should look into either .Net remoting or web services instead.
A simple TCP stream jumps out at me. Have the network client open a listening TCP socket, and have the game connect to the network client. You could continue to send the same XML data you're already writing, if you like.
I agree with the tcp/ip socket answer proposed by David. I would simply submit the data to a socket on the local pc and have the other application listen to the socket. You can transmit data easily and quickly using this method and it will work no matter what version of the .net framework you are targeting.
I need to write a program that will communicate with other .NET programs ... but also a legacy VFP program over TCP. I need to choose a fairly simple TCP message format that the VFP programmer can use. It could be as simple as a sequence of small XML blobs delimited by... I dunno, a null character? Whatever.
I need to choose between TcpListener/TcpClient and WCF. I started researching WCF but its architecture seems opaque and built-in Visual Studio templates are heavily biased toward making "web services" that act like a sort of RPC mechanism, but require a special "host" or web server that is external to the application. And Microsoft's 6-stage tutorial makes WCF sound pretty cumbersome (involving code generators, command-line and XML crap just to remotely subtract or multiply two numbers).
I want a self-contained app (no "host"), I want control of the wire protocol, and I want to understand how it works. WCF doesn't seem to facilitate these things, so I abandoned it in factor of TcpListener/TcpClient.
However, the program is to serve as an intermediary between a single (VFP) server and many (.NET) clients, and there will be communication in both directions and across different connections. Using TcpListener and TcpClient, the work of juggling the connections and threads is getting a bit messy, I have no experience with IAsyncResult, and I'm not just not confident in my code quality.
So I would like to solicit opinions again: should I still consider WCF instead? If yes, can you point me toward answers to the following questions?
Where in the web is a good explanation of WCF's architecture? Or do I need a book?
How is bi-directional communication done in WCF, where either side (of a single TCP connection) can send a message at any time?
How can I get past all the web-services and RPC mumbo-jumbo, and control the wire protocol?
In WCF, how do I shut down the app cleanly, closing all connections in parallel without hacky Thread.Abort() commands?
If no, how can I set up my code (that uses TcpListener/TcpClient/NetworkStream) so that I can read a message from a NetworkStream, but also accept requests from other connections, shut down cleanly at any time, and avoid wasting CPU time to poll queues and NetworkStreams that are inactive?
The short answer: go with WCF. While there's a good amount of tooling and code-generation and other bells and whistles around it, there's nothing that is preventing you from setting up everything in code (you can define your contracts, set the endpoints up, etc. all in code).
For your specific questions:
WCF Architecture - This is pretty basic, and it should get you up and running relatively quickly.
What you are looking for is duplex services. The NetTcpBinding allows for duplex services out-of-the-box (although you can do it with HTTP, you need a specific binding).
If you want to control the wire format, you will want to create a custom encoder. However, I have to strongly recommend against it. You want to create an XML file with null character to delineate separate messages? There's no need for that, the nature of XML is that you can create child elements to perform the appropriate grouping; there's no limit to how many elements you can nest. There's really no need for this.
Simply shutting down the ServiceHost by calling Close, this will allow all outstanding requests to complete, and then shut down gracefully. If you really want to tear down without concern, then call Abort.
In the end, I'd strongly recommend that you not use the NetTcpBinding; VFP will have a difficult time consuming the protocol. However, if you use an HTTP-based protocol, there are always tools that VFP can easily use to make the call and consume the contents (assuming you stick with XML).
Just to tack on about a common on using DCOM, VFP can utilize DCOM, but needs to be done with CreateObjectEx()... the only big difference is you need to know the GUID of the class instance you are connecting to on whatever server it is connecting to, AND the machine name its going to connect to.
Then the remote object does its work via exposed functions, but VFP calling it from some other machine on the network treats it as if the function was being performed locally and gets whatever the return values are.
I've done DCOM with VFP even as far back as 10 yrs ago for an insurance company...
I have two unrelated processes that use .NET assemblies as plugins. However, either process can be started/stopped at any time. I can't rely on a particular process being the server. In fact, there may be multiple copies running of one of the processes, but only one of the other.
I initially implemented a solution based off of this article. However, this requires the one implementing the server to be running before the client.
Whats the best way to implement some kind of notification to the server when the client(s) were running first?
Using shared memory is tougher because you'll have to manage the size of the shared memory buffer (or just pre-allocate enough). You'll also have to manually manage the data structures that you put in there. Once you have it tested and working though, it will be easier to use and test because of its simplicity.
If you go the remoting route, you can use the IpcChannel instead of the TCP or HTTP channels for a single system communication using Named Pipes. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/4b3scst2.aspx. The problem with this solution is that you'll need to come up with a registry type solution (either in shared memory or some other persistent store) that processes can register their endpoints with. That way, when you're looking for them, you can find a way to query for all the endpoints that are running on the system and you can find what you're looking for. The benefits of going with Remoting are that the serialization and method calling are all pretty straightforward. Also, if you decide to move to multiple machines on a network, you could just flip the switch to use the networking channels instead. The cons are that Remoting can get frustrating unless you clearly separate what are "Remote" calls from what are "Local" calls.
I don't know much about WCF, but that also might be worth looking into. Spider sense says that it probably has a more elegant solution to this problem... maybe.
Alternatively, you can create a "server" process that is separate from all the other processes and that gets launched (use a system Mutex to make sure more than one isn't launched) to act as a go-between and registration hub for all the other processes.
One more thing to look into the Publish-Subscribe model for events (Pub/Sub). This technique helps when you have a listener that is launched before the event source is available, but you don't want to wait to register for the event. The "server" process will handle the event registry to link up the publishers and subscribers.
Why not host the server and the client on both sides, and whoever comes up first gets to be the server? And if the server drops out, the client that is still active switches roles.
There are many ways to handle IPC (.net or not) and via a TCP/HTTP tunnel is one way...but can be a very bad choice (depending on circumstances and enviornment).
Shared memory and named pipes are two ways (and yes they can be done in .Net) that might be better solutions for you. There is also the IPC class in the .Net Framework...but I personally don't like them due to some AppDomain issues...
I agree with Garo.
Using a pub/sub service would be a great solution. This obviously means that this service would need to be up and running before either of the other two.
If you want to skip the pub/sub you can just implement the service in both applications with different end points. When either of the applications is launched it tries to access the other known object via the IPC proxy. If the proxy fails, the other object isn't up.
-Scott
I've spent 2 days meandering through all the options available for IPC while looking for a reliable, simple, and fast way to do full-duplex IPC. IPCLibrary, which I found on Codeplex.com, is so far working perfectly out of all the options that I tried. All with only 7 lines of code. :D If anyone stumbles across this trying to find a full-duplex IPC, save yourself a ton of time and give this library a try. Grab the source code, compile the data.dll and follow the examples given.
HTH,
Circ