I was told that I shouldn't cache channels in Silverlight/WCF because they may become faulted and unsuable. Can somone show me some sample code that would prove it can happen.
Call a service to prove the connection can work (i.e. no bogus URL)
Make a second call that fouls the channel by causing it to go into a faulted condition
Repeat the first call, which would fail.
In my own testing, the key is whether the binding you're using is session-oriented or not. If you're using a stateless binding like BasicHttpBinding, you can muck up the channel all you want and you're good. For instance, I've got a WCF service using the BasicHttpBinding that looks like this -- note specifically the Channel.Abort() call in SayGoodbye():
public class HelloWorldService : IHelloWorldService
{
public string SayHello()
{
return "Hello.";
}
public string SayGoodbye()
{
OperationContext.Current.Channel.Abort();
return "Goodbye.";
}
}
And the Silverlight client code looks like this (ugly as hell, sorry).
public partial class ServiceTestPage : Page
{
HelloWorldServiceClient client;
public ServiceTestPage()
{
InitializeComponent();
client = new HelloWorldServiceClient();
client.SayHelloCompleted += new EventHandler<SayHelloCompletedEventArgs>(client_SayHelloCompleted);
client.SayGoodbyeCompleted += new EventHandler<SayGoodbyeCompletedEventArgs>(client_SayGoodbyeCompleted);
client.SayHelloAsync();
}
void client_SayHelloCompleted(object sender, SayHelloCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error == null)
{
Debug.WriteLine("Called SayHello() with result: {0}.", e.Result);
client.SayGoodbyeAsync();
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine("Called SayHello() with the error: {0}", e.Error.ToString());
}
}
void client_SayGoodbyeCompleted(object sender, SayGoodbyeCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error == null)
{
Debug.WriteLine("Called SayGoodbye() with result: {0}.");
}
else
{
Debug.WriteLine("Called SayGoodbye() with the error: {0}", e.Error.ToString());
}
client.SayHelloAsync(); // start over
}
}
And it'll loop around infinitely as long as you want.
But if you're using a session-oriented binding like Net.TCP or HttpPollingDuplex, you've got to be much more careful about your channel handling. If that's the case, then of course you're caching your proxy client, right? What you have to do in that instance is to catch the Channel_Faulted event, abort the client, and then recreate it, and of course, re-establish all your event-handlers. Kind of a pain.
On a side note, when it comes to using a duplex binding, the best approach that I've found (I'm open to others) is to create a wrapper around my proxy client that does three things:
(1) Transforms the obnoxious event-raising code generated by the "Add Service Reference" dialog box into a far-more-useful continuation-passing pattern.
(2) Wraps each of the events raised from the server-side, so that the client can subscribe to the event on my wrapper, not the event on the proxy client itself, since the proxy client itself may have to be deleted and recreated.
(3) Handles the ChannelFaulted event, and (several times, with a timeout) attempts to recreate the proxy client. If it succeeds, it automatically resubscribes all of its event wrappers, and if it fails, it throws a real ClientFaulted event which in effect means, "You're screwed, try again later."
It's a pain, since it seems like this is the sort of thing that should have been included with the MS-generated code in the first place. But it sure fixes a whole lot of problems. One of these days I'll see if I can get this wrapper working with T4 templates.
Related
We are using Application Insights today to track events in our WPF solution.
Since this is a desktop we need to manually call the flush method.
Since we don't track an heap of events we keep flushing whenever an event come.
What we realised is that the flush method is very slow. What we've now done is moved this flush call to another thread, and hence need to keep alot of locks and checks, extra code.
Looking into the application insights code it comes down to these two methods:
private void DequeueAndSend()
{
lock (this.sendingLockObj)
{
IEnumerable<ITelemetry> telemetryItems = this.buffer.Dequeue();
try
{
// send request
this.Send(telemetryItems).ConfigureAwait(false).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
CoreEventSource.Log.LogVerbose("DequeueAndSend: Failed Sending: Exception: " + e.ToString());
}
}
}
/// <summary>
/// Serializes a list of telemetry items and sends them.
/// </summary>
private async Task Send(IEnumerable<ITelemetry> telemetryItems)
{
if (telemetryItems == null || !telemetryItems.Any())
{
CoreEventSource.Log.LogVerbose("No Telemetry Items passed to Enqueue");
return;
}
byte[] data = JsonSerializer.Serialize(telemetryItems);
var transmission = new Transmission(this.endpointAddress, data, "application/x-json-stream", JsonSerializer.CompressionType);
await transmission.SendAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
}
Looking specificly at this line:
this.Send(telemetryItems).ConfigureAwait(false).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Not sure I'm getting this right but wouldn't the GetResult() make this method synchronous, if so, why is it implemented this way?
If not, what might be the reason for the Flush() method to be so slow?
I use wcf service client to submit changes of data for a silverlight project. The correlative codes like this:
public class DispatcherCollection : UpdatableCollection<DocumentDispatcher>
{
public override void SubmitChanges()
{
DocumentServiceClient client = new DocumentServiceClient();
client.NewDocumentCompleted += (s, e) =>
{
// (s as DocumentServiceClient).CloseAsync();
// do something
};
client.UpdateColumnCompleted += (s, e) =>
{
// (s as DocumentServiceClient).CloseAsync();
// do something
};
client.RemoveDocumentCompleted += (s, e) =>
{
// (s as DocumentServiceClient).CloseAsync();
// do something
};
foreach (DocumentDispatcher d in this)
{
if (d.IsNew)
{
// d=>object[] data
client.NewDocumentAsync(data);
d.IsNew=false;
}
else
{
foreach (string propertyName in d.modifiedProperties)
{
client.UpdateColumnAsync(d.ID, GetPropertyValue(propertyName));
}
dd.ClearModifications();
}
}
foreach (DocumentDispatcher dd in removedItems)
{
client.RemoveDocumentAsync(dd.ID);
}
removedItems.Clear();
}
}
Class UpdatableCollection derives from ObserableCollection, and I implemtent logics in class DocumentDispatcher and UpdatableCollection to buffer the changes of data such as new created, property modified and removed. I use SubmitChanges method to submit all changes to server.
Now I am stuck:
1. I am at a loss when to close the client after a bunlde fo async calls. I don't know which callback is the last one.
2. What will happen when a user closes the IE immediately right after clicking the save button (it seems to be done because it runs async but in fact the updating threads are industriously running.)?
You can keep a counter or use an isbusy function to monitor the callbacks from your Async calls - to make sure they all finished.
If the user fires off a request to the WCF service, the WCF service will complete but there will be no call back - as the application will be closed.
I think that there is no wait handle for silverlight asynchornized call brings inconvenience. Here is my experence. I want to check and submit modifications of data which are not expicitly submitted when browser is closing. I have implemented codes in App_Exit like this:
private void Application_Exit(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Document doc = EDPViewModel.CurrentViewModel.Document;
if (doc != null) new ServiceClient().SubmitChangesAsync(doc);
}
provided that in the SubmitChangesAsync method, not submitted modifications of doc are found out and submitted. Therefore, because of the asynchronized running features, while the service invoking is being sent, the application is yet immediately closed. And that will dispose related resouces of the application, including Service Invoking Tasks. So the codes above work not. I hope so eagerly that somewhere exists a mechanism, which can export a wait handle from silverlight asynchronized call, so that I can update the above codes whith this:
private void Application_Exit(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Document doc = EDPViewModel.CurrentViewModel.Document;
if (doc != null)
{
Task t = new TaskFactory().StartNew(() => new ServiceClient().SubmitChangesAsync(doc));
t.Wait();
}
}
With wait operation I can really be sure that all modifications are really definitely submitted. So is there any similar pattern that can be used in silverlight?
It's for me a good news, as you put it, that calls could work like the mode "requesting and forgetting". So I needn' to worry too much about data losing during submitting.
To ensure all service calls are sent out before application is closed, I think, counter is a simple and effient idea. I will try to implement it in my project.
Thank you for your help!
I guess most of us agree, that NIO2 is a fine thing to make use of. Presumed you want to monitor some part of the file system for incoming xml - files it is an easy task now. But what if I want to integrate the things into an existing Java EE application so I don't have to start another service (app-server AND the one which monitors the file system)?
So I have the heavy weight app-server with all the EJB 3.1 stuff and some kind of service monitoring the file system and take appropriate action once a file shows up. Interestingly the appropriate action is to create a Message and send it by JMS and it might be nice to integrate both into the app server.
I tried #Startup but deployment freezes (and I know that I shouldn't make use of I/O in there, was just a try). Anyhow ... any suggestions?
You could create a singleton that loads at startup and delegates the monitoring to an Asynchronous bean
#Singleton
#Startup
public class Initialiser {
#EJB
private FileSystemMonitor fileSystemMonitor;
#PostConstruct
public void init() {
String fileSystemPath = ....;
fileSystemMonitor.poll(fileSystemPath);
}
}
Then the Asynchronous bean looks something like this
#Stateless
public class FileSystemMonitor {
#Asynchronous
public void poll(String fileSystemPath) {
WatchService watcher = ....;
for (;;) {
WatchKey key = null;
try {
key = watcher.take();
for (WatchEvent<?> event: key.pollEvents()) {
WatchEvent.Kind<?> kind = event.kind();
if (kind == StandardWatchEventKinds.OVERFLOW) {
continue; // If events are lost or discarded
}
WatchEvent<Path> watchEvent = (WatchEvent<Path>)event;
//Process files....
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return;
} finally {
if (key != null) {
boolean valid = key.reset();
if (!valid) break; // If the key is no longer valid, the directory is inaccessible so exit the loop.
}
}
}
}
}
Might help if you specified what server you're using, but have you considered implementing a JMX based service ? It's a bit more "neutral" than EJB, is more appropriate for a background service and has fewer restrictions.
As part of my App's startup procedure, it checks data integrity, and if it finds a problem it pops up a message to the user telling them that it might take a while to repair things.
I'm showing the message using MessageBox.Show. Because the data check is done from a worker thread, I'm switching over to the UI thread to make that call, and then setting a ManualResetEvent to tell the worker thread when the user has acknowledged the message.
I kick off the data check/load very early in the app's lifecycle from the constructor in the main Application class, by spinning off a worker thread (using the ThreadPool).
When I run with the debugger, and the message is displayed, the app just waits for input. When I run without the debugger, the app terminates after displaying the dialog for 10 seconds.
That 10 seconds is a big clue - it tells me that the OS thinks the app took too long to initialize (the OS kills apps that take too long to start up).
I think that my MessageBox.Show is blocking the UI thread before the App.RootFrameNavigating has a chance to be invoked.
My questions:
Does my diagnosis sound right?
I'd prefer to kick off my data load early, because it is almost entirely IO, except for this Message Box, and the sooner I can get my Model loaded, the better, but do you normally delay your data load until later in the app lifecycle?
Any other ideas/suggestions? I can't guarantee which page will be the start page, because the app could be resuming to any page. I'm also thinking of having the MessageBox.Show delay itself until the app has initialized, perhaps polling away for a flag set by App.RootFrameNavigating - does that make sense?
I think your problem is a result of kicking off the worker thread in the Application constructor. You should use the appropriate life-cycle event, in this case: PhoneApplicationService.Activated Event
So, the solution I've come up with is to still kick off the data load in a worker-thread from the Application's constructor, but in my PhoneService's class ShowDialog method that I invoke to invoke MessageBox.Show, I check to see if the initial navigation has occurred:
private readonly ManualResetEvent _appInitialized = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void AppInitialized()
{
_appInitialized.Set();
}
public void ShowDialog(string caption, string text, Action<MessageBoxResult> callback, MessageBoxButton button = MessageBoxButton.OKCancel)
{
_appInitialized.WaitOne();
DispatcherHelper.CheckBeginInvokeOnUI(() =>
{
var result = MessageBox.Show(text, caption, button);
if (callback != null)
{
callback(result);
}
});
}
Then in my Application class:
private bool _firstNavigate = true;
private void RootFrameNavigating(object sender, NavigatingCancelEventArgs e)
{
if (_firstNavigate)
{
_firstNavigate = false;
var navigationService = (NavigationService) sender;
navigationService.Navigated += NavigationServiceNavigated;
}
....
private void NavigationServiceNavigated(object sender, NavigationEventArgs e)
{
var navigationService = (NavigationService)sender;
navigationService.Navigated -= NavigationServiceNavigated;
PhoneServices.Current.AppInitialized();
}
Anyone see any issues with this approach? Anyone come up with a better way?
I have a SafeInvoke Control extension method similar to the one Greg D discusses here (minus the IsHandleCreated check).
I am calling it from a System.Windows.Forms.Form as follows:
public void Show(string text) {
label.SafeInvoke(()=>label.Text = text);
this.Show();
this.Refresh();
}
Sometimes (this call can come from a variety of threads) this results in the following error:
System.InvalidOperationException occurred
Message= "Invoke or BeginInvoke cannot be called on a control until the window handle has been created."
Source= "System.Windows.Forms"
StackTrace:
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.MarshaledInvoke(Control caller, Delegate method, Object[] args, Boolean synchronous)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(Delegate method, Object[] args)
at System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke(Delegate method)
at DriverInterface2.UI.WinForms.Dialogs.FormExtensions.SafeInvoke[T](T control, Action`1 action)
in C:\code\DriverInterface2\DriverInterface2.UI.WinForms\Dialogs\FormExtensions.cs:line 16
What is going on and how do I fix it? I know as much as it is not a problem of form creation, since sometimes it will work once and fail the next time so what could the problem be?
PS. I really really am awful at WinForms, does anyone know a good series of articles that explains the whole model and how to work with it?
It's possible that you're creating your controls on the wrong thread. Consider the following documentation from MSDN:
This means that InvokeRequired can
return false if Invoke is not required
(the call occurs on the same thread),
or if the control was created on a
different thread but the control's
handle has not yet been created.
In the case where the control's handle
has not yet been created, you should
not simply call properties, methods,
or events on the control. This might
cause the control's handle to be
created on the background thread,
isolating the control on a thread
without a message pump and making the
application unstable.
You can protect against this case by
also checking the value of
IsHandleCreated when InvokeRequired
returns false on a background thread.
If the control handle has not yet been
created, you must wait until it has
been created before calling Invoke or
BeginInvoke. Typically, this happens
only if a background thread is created
in the constructor of the primary form
for the application (as in
Application.Run(new MainForm()),
before the form has been shown or
Application.Run has been called.
Let's see what this means for you. (This would be easier to reason about if we saw your implementation of SafeInvoke also)
Assuming your implementation is identical to the referenced one with the exception of the check against IsHandleCreated, let's follow the logic:
public static void SafeInvoke(this Control uiElement, Action updater, bool forceSynchronous)
{
if (uiElement == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("uiElement");
}
if (uiElement.InvokeRequired)
{
if (forceSynchronous)
{
uiElement.Invoke((Action)delegate { SafeInvoke(uiElement, updater, forceSynchronous); });
}
else
{
uiElement.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { SafeInvoke(uiElement, updater, forceSynchronous); });
}
}
else
{
if (uiElement.IsDisposed)
{
throw new ObjectDisposedException("Control is already disposed.");
}
updater();
}
}
Consider the case where we're calling SafeInvoke from the non-gui thread for a control whose handle has not been created.
uiElement is not null, so we check uiElement.InvokeRequired. Per the MSDN docs (bolded) InvokeRequired will return false because, even though it was created on a different thread, the handle hasn't been created! This sends us to the else condition where we check IsDisposed or immediately proceed to call the submitted action... from the background thread!
At this point, all bets are off re: that control because its handle has been created on a thread that doesn't have a message pump for it, as mentioned in the second paragraph. Perhaps this is the case you're encountering?
I found the InvokeRequired not reliable, so I simply use
if (!this.IsHandleCreated)
{
this.CreateHandle();
}
Here is my answer to a similar question:
I think (not yet entirely sure) that
this is because InvokeRequired will
always return false if the control has
not yet been loaded/shown. I have done
a workaround which seems to work for
the moment, which is to simple
reference the handle of the associated
control in its creator, like so:
var x = this.Handle;
(See
http://ikriv.com/en/prog/info/dotnet/MysteriousHang.html)
The method in the post you link to calls Invoke/BeginInvoke before checking if the control's handle has been created in the case where it's being called from a thread that didn't create the control.
So you'll get the exception when your method is called from a thread other than the one that created the control. This can happen from remoting events or queued work user items...
EDIT
If you check InvokeRequired and HandleCreated before calling invoke you shouldn't get that exception.
If you're going to use a Control from another thread before showing or doing other things with the Control, consider forcing the creation of its handle within the constructor. This is done using the CreateHandle function.
In a multi-threaded project, where the "controller" logic isn't in a WinForm, this function is instrumental in Control constructors for avoiding this error.
Add this before you call method invoke:
while (!this.IsHandleCreated)
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100)
Reference the handle of the associated control in its creator, like so:
Note: Be wary of this solution.If a control has a handle it is much slower to do things like set the size and location of it. This makes InitializeComponent much slower. A better solution is to not background anything before the control has a handle.
var that = this; // this is a form
(new Thread(()=> {
var action= new Action(() => {
something
}));
if(!that.IsDisposed)
{
if(that.IsHandleCreated)
{
//if (that.InvokeRequired)
that.BeginInvoke(action);
//else
// action.Invoke();
}
else
that.HandleCreated+=(sender,event) => {
action.Invoke();
};
}
})).Start();
I had this problem with this kind of simple form:
public partial class MyForm : Form
{
public MyForm()
{
Load += new EventHandler(Form1_Load);
}
private void Form1_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
InitializeComponent();
}
internal void UpdateLabel(string s)
{
Invoke(new Action(() => { label1.Text = s; }));
}
}
Then for n other async threads I was using new MyForm().UpdateLabel(text) to try and call the UI thread, but the constructor gives no handle to the UI thread instance, so other threads get other instance handles, which are either Object reference not set to an instance of an object or Invoke or BeginInvoke cannot be called on a control until the window handle has been created. To solve this I used a static object to hold the UI handle:
public partial class MyForm : Form
{
private static MyForm _mf;
public MyForm()
{
Load += new EventHandler(Form1_Load);
}
private void Form1_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
InitializeComponent();
_mf = this;
}
internal void UpdateLabel(string s)
{
_mf.Invoke((MethodInvoker) delegate { _mf.label1.Text = s; });
}
}
I guess it's working fine, so far...
What about this :
public static bool SafeInvoke( this Control control, MethodInvoker method )
{
if( control != null && ! control.IsDisposed && control.IsHandleCreated && control.FindForm().IsHandleCreated )
{
if( control.InvokeRequired )
{
control.Invoke( method );
}
else
{
method();
}
return true;
}
else return false;
}