Say,there is a requirement that a customer object is loaded from the db to a silverlight application, so that the customer details are shown in the UI. We need to detect if the user is changing any data in the UI.
We are listening to property changed notifications from the view model. However, when the notifications are result of property change as part of the loading process we have to discard it.
class CustomerLoader
{
Helper helerobj;
Address addressobj;
Profile profileobj;
void LoadFromDb()
{
helperobj.Load();
addressobj.Load();
profileobj.Load();
//start listening after the loading finished
this.propertychanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler(handlepropertychanged);
}
The trouble with this is the inner objects might be calling asynchronous functions which might set properties. So by the time we started the property change listening, the loading might not have been finished.
We need to know when the loading is actually done. As of now we are asking the developers who are developing the inner object classes to accept a callback in the parameter which they should call when the function is finished.
Is there any other way to do it?
You want nothing but a really classic asynchronous objet loading.
So yes, the only solution is to ask developers working on the loading to propose an asynchronous function. Now you hav several solution to achieve asynchronicity in Silverlight.
You could either provide a callback as you do, or use async and await to manage your asynch task as explain here: http://10rem.net/blog/2012/05/22/using-async-and-await-in-silverlight-5-and-net-4-in-visual-studio-11-with-the-async-targeting-pack
Related
I am supposed to work on a wpf legacy application( and desktop app is a new beast for me).
I have read that consumming task should not be launched on the ui thread : but I find this following code in the code behind of a view :
bool isSearching = true;
try
{
Task<ProductSearchResult>.Factory
.StartNew(() => DBCatalogService.Search( search.Criteria, search.CriteriaPage, search.CriteriaResultByPage)
.ContinueWith(res => LoadResult(res, search.Criteria, search.CriteriaPage, search.CriteriaResultByPage),
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext())
.ContinueWith(s => isSearching = false);
}
catch
{
...
}
I am wondering it will not cause any trouble.
I know that it's sounds weird to call the database directly from the view code behind, but I just want to know if it could freeze the ui thread or something like this.
Thank you for your advice on this matter.
My question is : does the sample code that I provided would block the UI thread and have to be considered harmfull or not ?
The call to the DBCatalogService.Search method will not block the UI thread since it is being invoked on a background thread using the task parallel library (TPL).
The call to the LoadResult method will however be executed on the UI thread once the task that calls the Search method has completed.
This is fine though since this method probably sets some properties of some UI elements based on the result of the search and you must do this on the UI thread. This is because WPF controls have thread affinity, meaning that a control can only be accessed on the thread on which it was originally created.
So no, the sample code you have provided should not be considered "harmfull" in terms of UI responsiveness assuming that the LoadResult doesn't perform any strange and potentially long-running operations.
If you block the UI thread (dispatcher thread) with a long-running operation such as a synchronous DB request, your application will be unresponsive until the thread is unblocked.
You can avoid this by either:
Doing the blocking/synchronous operation on another thread
Making the operation non-blocking/asynchronous
Both of the above
Using async/await can make your code read much like the synchronous form, but with asynchronous behaviour. It should be much clearer than the code sample you give in the question. However you need an async form of your search.
If you do use another thread, remember to dispatch back onto the UI thread if you have to update UI properties.
Lets say, that I’ve got simple app, which is created with Backbone.Marionette.
For sake of simplicity, assume that I’ve got „Show” view for some model (it doesn’t matter here what it is), where I can click „Add new”, which shows me „new” view in „modal” window.
I’m displaying there simple form, which (after validation) is sent to my API. During that, I’m displaying other view (which displays sth. like „Saving, please wait…”).
In case of success, I’m closing this modal window, and everything is OK.
However (that is the tricky part): I would like to handle situations, when from some reason model was not saved (API temporary downtime, connection issue, race condition etc.), and display same view another time (I thought that it should be easy) – however, when I’m doing this, events aren’t handled anymore (ie: submitForm action is not executed second time :( )
Here is my my proof of concept for this:
class MyApp.SampleView extends Marionette.View
events:
"submit form": "submitForm"
submitForm: (event) ->
event.preventDefault()
data = $(event.currentTarget).serializeObject()
model = SampleModel.new(data)
if model.isValid()
MyApp.popupRegion.show(SavingPopup)
savePromise = model.save()
savePromise.success =>
#close()
#displayNotification("Model has been added")
savePromise.error =>
#displayNotification("Something went wrong, please try again")
MyApp.popupRegion.show(this) # displays correct view
# but does not handle events :(
TL;DR version:
How to re–append view to region in such way that my events still will be handled?
Before a region show()'s a view it calls close() on the currently displayed view. close() acts as the view's destructor, unbinding all events, rendering it useless and allowing the garbage collector to dispose of it.
When you execute MyApp.popupRegion.show(SavingPopup), this is close()'d. You will need to create a new instance of the view in savePromise.error, or find some other way to signal your application that the view needs to be recreated.
Something like this should work:
savePromise.error =>
#displayNotification("Something went wrong, please try again")
MyApp.popupRegion.show(new MyApp.SampleView)
I am using WCF services asynchronously in a WPF application. So I have class with all the web service. The view models call the method in this proc, which in-turn calls the web service.
So the view Model code looks like this:
WebServiceAgent.GetProductByID(SelectedProductID, (s, e)=>{States = e.Result;});
And the WebService agent looks like:
public static void GetProductByID(int ProductID, EventHandler<GetProductListCompletedEventArgs> callback)
{
Client.GetProductByIDCompleted += callback;
Client.GetProductByIDAsync(ProductID);
}
Is this a good approach? I am using MVVM light toolkit. So the View Model static, so in the lifetime of the application, the view model stays. But each time the view model calls this WebServiceAgent, I think I am registering an event. But that event is not being unregistered.
Is this a problem. Lets say the view Model is called for 20 - 30 times. I am inserting some kind of memory leak?
Some helpful information, based on the mistakes I learned from myself:
The Client object seems to be re-used all the time. When not unregisering event handlers, they will stack up when future invokations of the same operations finish and you'll get unpredictable results.
The States = e.Result statement is executed on the event handler's thread, which is not the UI dispatcher thread. When updating lists or complex properties this will cause problems.
In general not unregistering event handlers when they are invoked is a bad idea as it will indeed cause hard to find memory leaks.
You should probably refactor to create or re-use a clean client, wrap the viewmodel callback inside another callback that will take care of unregistering itself, cleaning up the client, and invoking the viewmodel's callback on the main dispatcher thread.
If you think all this is tedious, check out http://blogs.msdn.com/b/csharpfaq/archive/2010/10/28/async.aspx and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/async.aspx. In the next version of C# an async keyword will be introduced to make this all easier. A CTP is available already.
Event handlers are death traps and you will leak them if you do not "unsubscribe" with "-=".
One way to avoid is to use RX (Reactive Extensions) that will manage your event subscriptions. Take a look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg577609 and specifically creating Observable by using Observable.FromEvent or FromAsync http://rxwiki.wikidot.com/101samples.
This is unfortunaltely not a good approach.
I learned this the hard way in silverlight.
Your WebserviceAgent is probably a long-life object, whereas the model or view is probably short-life
Events give references, and in this case the webservice agent, and wcf client a reference to the model. A long lifeobject has a reference to a short life object, this means the short life object will not be collected, and so will have a memory leak.
As Pieter-Bias said, the async functionality will make this easier.
Have you looked at RIA services? This is the exact problem that RIA services was designed to solve
Yes, the event handlers are basically going to cause a leak unless removed. To get the near-single line equivalent of what you're expressing in your code, and to remove handlers you're going to need an instance of some sort of class that represents the full lifecycle of the call and does some housekeeping.
What I've done is create a Caller<TResult> class that uses an underlying WCF client proxy following this basic pattern:
create a Caller instance around an existing or new client proxy (the proxy's lifecycle is outside of the scope of the call to be made (so you can use a new short-lived one or an existing long-lived one).
use one of Caller's various CallAsync<TArg [,...]> overloads to specify the async method to call and the intended callback to call upon completion. This method will choose the async method that also takes a state parameter. The state parameter will be the Caller instance itself.
I say intended because the real handler that will be wired up will do a bit more housekeeping. The real callback is what will be called at the end of the async call, and will
check that ReferenceEquals(e.UserState, this) in your real handler
if not true, immediately return (the event was not intended to be the result of this particular call and should be ignored; this is very important if your proxy is long lived)
otherwise, immediately remove the real handler
call your intended, actual callback with e.Result
Modify Caller's real handler as needed to execute the intended callback on the right thread (more important for WPF than Silverlight)
The above implementation should also have separate handlers for cases where e.Error is non-null or e.Cancelled is true. This gives you the advantage of not checking these cases in your intended callback. Perhaps your overloads take in optional handlers for those cases.
At any rate, you end up cleaning up handlers aggressively at the expense of some per-call wiring. It's a bit expensive per-call, but with proper optimization ends up being far less expensive than the over-the-wire WCF call anyway.
Here's an example of a call using the class (you'll note I use method groups in many cases to increase the readability, though HandleStuff could have been result => use result ). The first method group is important, because CallAsync gets the owner of that delegate (i.e. the service instance), which is needed to call the method; alternatively the service could be passed in as a separate parameter).
Caller<AnalysisResult>.CallAsync(
// line below could also be longLivedAnalyzer.AnalyzeSomeThingsAsync
new AnalyzerServiceClient().AnalyzeSomeThingsAsync,
listOfStuff,
HandleAnalyzedStuff,
// optional handlers for error or cancelled would go here
onFailure:TellUserWhatWentWrong);
I'm fairly new to MVVM, so please excuse me if this problem has a well-known solution.
We are building a bunch of model classes which have some core properties that are loaded up-front, as well as some additional properties which could be lazy-loaded on demand by making a web API call (update: to clarify, it would be a web API call per lazily-loaded property).
Rather than having multiple models, it seems sensible to have a single model with the lazy-loading logic in there. However, it also seems that the lazy-loaded properties should not block when accessed, so that when the View binds to the ViewModel and it binds to the Model, we don't block the UI thread.
As such, I was thinking of a pattern something along the lines of when a lazy property on the Model is accessed it begins an asynchronous fetch and then immediately returns a default value (e.g. null). When the asynchronous fetch is complete, it will raise a PropertyChanged event so that the ViewModel/View can re-bind to the fetched value.
I've tried this out and it seems to work quite nicely, but was wondering:
Are there any pitfalls to this approach that I haven't found out about yet, but will run into as the app increases in complexity?
Is there an existing solution to this problem either built into the framework, or which is widely used as part of a 3rd party framework?
I did something like this in the past and the one thing I kept forgetting about is you can't call your async property through any kind of code behind and expect it to have a value.
So if I lazy-load a list of Customer.Products, I can't reference Customer.Products.Count in the code-behind because the first time it's called the value is NULL or 0 (depending on if I create a blank collection or not)
Other than that, it worked great for the bindings. I was using the Async CTP library for making my async calls, which I found was absolutely wonderful for something like this.
public ObservableCollection<Products> Products
{
get
{
if (_products == null)
LoadProductsAsync();
return _products;
}
set { ... }
}
private async void LoadProductsAsync()
{
Products = await DAL.LoadProducts(CustomerId);
}
Update
I remember another thing I had issues with was data that actually was NULL. If Customer.Products actually returned a NULL value from the server, I needed to know that the async method had run correctly and that the actual value was null so that it didn't re-run the async method.
I also didn't want the async method to get run twice if someone called the Get method a 2nd time before the first async call had completed.
I solved this at the time by having an Is[AsyncPropertyName]Loading/ed property for every async property and setting it to true during the first async call, but I wasn't really happy about having to create an extra property for all async properties.
I have often times wondered about it but now that I have encountered a piece of logic that incorporates it, I thought I should go ahead and get some help on deciphering the fundamentals. The problem is as follows, I am looking at a WPF application that is utilizing the Composite Application Library. Within the source of the application I came across the following line of code in the Presentation of a view. For the sake of convinience I will call it Presentation A:
private void OnSomethingChanged(SomeArgumentType arguement)
{
UnityImplementation.EventAggregator.GetEvent<EventA>().Publish(null);
}
When I saw the method Publish in the above given method, my gut told me there must be a Subscribe somewhere and in another class, I will call it Presentation B there was the following:
UnityImplementation.EventAggregator.GetEvent(Of EventA).Subscribe(AddressOf OnSomeEventA)
There was a private function in the same class called OnSomeEventA that had some logic in it.
My question here is that how is everything wired over here? What exactly is achieved by the 'Publish' 'Subscribe' here? When 'something' changes, how does the compiler know it has to follow the logic in OnSomethingChanged that will 'Publish' an event that is 'Subscribed' by another class where the logic of the event handler has been described? It will be great to understand the underlying wiring of this process.
Thanks
The first time GetEvent<T> is called for each event (identified by the type parameter T) the EventAggregator creates an empty list of methods to call when that event is published. Typically, this will happen immediately before the first call to Publish or Subscribe (as in your examples).
Then:
Whenever Subscribe is called a method is added to the list.
Whenever Publish is called it walks through the list and makes those calls.
So, the call to Publish() in Presentation A results in all of the methods that have been registered by calling Subscribe being called, which in your example would include Presentation B's OnSomeEventA method.
Try setting a breakpoint in the OnSomeEventA method and take a look at the stack, and don't forget the source is available, too!