I am wondering if there is a way to trigger message box on server side.
My case is that I have some logic on server side of the scout application. In the middle of the process some decision need to be made. It this case I would like to trigger message box with YES, NO, CANCEL options.
The way my logic works it really hard to split it into two functions and call one first, ask question and call another with on answer. So this is out of the way for me.
If it is not possible to triggered message box on scout service, is there a way to "mimic" it. So call service method, in the middle pause it, go to client side, present messsage box, return to same service method and continue it.
Why do I need this:
I have dependencies graph (between fields) implemented on scout server side.
After one field has been changed, the whole dependencies graph will be resolved.
One node of the graph has some logic that need user interaction. Problem is that I don't know if this method will be called (dependent on a graph), and if after this method other nods will be called.
You have asked a very similar question few months ago:
Scout Eclipse present optional message on server side
MessageBox is a client concept (package is: org.eclipse.scout.rt.client.ui.messagebox).
You need to transfert the data you need from the server to the client and intercept this information client-side to display the message box you want.
As Jmini already said, MessageBox is a client concept. What you can do is sending back a status (from server to client), checking it on client side and show an appropriate message (box). But then you interrupt your service method and cannot go on where it stopped (alternatively you can throw a VetoException, but this interrupts your service method aswell, so same problem). In my opinion, it is also not a good design to 'request' a user interaction from server side, because in this case, the server side has to wait for the user to respond.
I suggest, if possible, to split your logic into different parts. At first, you execute the first part until you reach the point where you need the user interaction. Then you could save the current state of execution, return to client and show the message. After the user has responded, you should start the 'second' execution, depending on the user's input. This second execution should be started by calling another (new) service, which at first should load or restore the state of the execution saved before requesting the user input.
Related
I have a little issue with a form in a delphy XE2 application:
It's an old issue on this application and i have begin to work on it just since a little time.
When the user choose to launch the process with a button's event, my application launch a connexion with an OPCServer , an SQLServer and construct the form for a good following of data take on the tow servers.
The construction of my form involves a blockage of the interface (for approximately 15 sec) because of lot's of data which are necessary for make it.
When it freeze, if the user want drag the form, she go far away, and usually with the TMainMenu which go out of the screen. After that, it's impossible to use the application because we can't drag and we need to close and re-open.
In the old version, the form be already construct before the connexion. So the modification for a dynamic form isn't in link with this issue.
Life of my event :
-Open connexion with OPC Server
-Open SQL Connexion
-Send SQL Command Text
-FieldByName('') for update my UI (Button.Caption// TPage.TStaticText.Caption // TPage.Label1.Caption)
-FieldByName('') for update an array of record
-Close SQL Connexion
-Open SQL Connexion
-Send SQL CommandText
-FieldByName('') for update an other array of record
-Panel.Visible(false)
-TPage.Panel.Show;
-TPage.Panel.BringToFront;
So I haven't MainForm modification can change its position.
I'm a young developer, so I don't know why it moving and what I can make for repair that...
If you want a part of code, ask me what and i edit this, it's very long and i don't want spam answer.
Thank's for read.
The core of your problem is that you have a lengthy process (form construction) which completely blocks the main thread so your application isn't able to process normal Windows messages at the same time. That is why when you move your application it doesn't properly update its interface.
Now based on your description you already have this form construction process split into multiple steps so you could call Application.ProcessMessages between them.
This will force your application to update its UI part.
But beware calling Application.ProcessMessages often could hurt your application performance quite a bit. Why? It is usually a lengthy process because it forces your application to process all the messages that are in its queue.
Normally not all of these messages get processed as soon as they arrive. Windows groups them in the message queue by their priority list, making sure that high priority messages like WM_PAINT are processed as soon as possible while some other low priority messages like demand for application to respond to OS so that OS can see if the application is still working are mostly processed when application is idle or when they are in queue for certain amount of time.
So that is why Application.ProcessMessages can be so slow as it forces your application to process all messages regardless of their priority.
Also bear in mind that using Application.ProcessMessages can in certain scenarios actually become a bit dangerous.
Let me give you an example:
Lets say that clicking on a button starts a lengthy job which can take some time to finish. Now in order to allow your form to be updated you call Application.ProcessMessages in certain intervals. So far it is all good. But what happens if user clicks on that button again?
Since you are calling Application.ProcessMessages which forces your application to process all the messages and since clicking on button creates a MouseClick message which then fires buttons OnClick event which then executes the OnClick method that has been assigned to buttons OnClick event in the end this will cause the same method that was executed on first button click to be executed again.
So now you have this method partially done from first button click and same method executing again for second mouse click. Now the method that was executed from the second click will finish first and then the method that was started from first button click but was interrupted with Application.ProcessMessages handling the second button click will continue its execution to the end.
This all can lead to strange bugs which are hard to track, because you as a programmer normally don't predict that your end user might have clicked the button twice.
So to avoid this I strongly recommend you implement some safeguard mechanisms to prevent such scenarios by temporarily disabling a button for instance.
But the best solution is always to show your user that your application is working which in most cases will dissuade them from clicking the button again, but unfortunately not always.
You should also take a good care when dynamically constructing a form to enable the controls only after all of the controls have been successfully constructed. Failing to do so the user might click on one of your controls and that control could attempt to access some other control which hasn't yet been created at the time. The result hard to track bug which causes Access Violation.
You might also consider showing a splash screen at start instead of half built form. Why?
For once it is much nicer to see and it tells your users to wait a bit. And for second having main form hidden until it is fully created makes sure that user won't be doing any clicks on it prematurely.
I want to use elements of CQRS pattern in my project. I wonder if i do it right with Command and Events.
The thing that I'm not sure is if event can invoke command. To better show what i want to do I will use diagram and example.
This is an example:
User invoke TripCreateCommand. TripCreateCommandHandler do his job and after success publish TripCreatedEvent.
Now we have two listener to TripCreatedEvent (the order of listener execution does not matter)
First listener (can be execute after the second listener):
for each user in trip.author.friends invoke two Command (the order of commands is important)
PublishTripOnUserWallCommand
SendNewTripEmailNotificationCommand
SendNewTripPlatformNotification
Second listener (can be execute before the first listener):
PublishTripOnUserSocials
And this is sample diagram:
Is this a good way ? Can EventListener invoke Command, or maybe I should do it in some other way ?
Your question is about Mesage Driven Architecture which works together with but otherwise unrelated to CQRS.
Anyway, your diagram is almost correct. The event subscriber/handler (I prefer this terminology) can send new Commands via the service bus, but it's not a rule that you should always do this. I implement quite a lot of functionality directly in the event handler, although probalby would be more clean and reliable to send a new command. It really depends on what I want to do.
Note that the message handlers (commands or events) should not know about other handlers. They should know about the bus and the bus takes care of handling. This means that in your app, the event handlers would take the bus as dependency, create the command and send it via the bus. The event handler itself doesn't know what command handler generated the event and can 'reply' to it.
Usually the commands would be handled independently and you can't guarantee the order (unless they're handled synchronously) so maybe you want the second command to be issued as a result of the first command's handling. Indeed, it can be the case for a Saga.
AFAIK you are talking only about doing things synchronously, so your approach works in this case but it's probably not scalable. Moving to async handling will break this execution flow. However your application can be fine with it, not everyhting needs to be twitter.
A message driven architecture is not that straightforward and for some cases (like you want an immediate response from the backend) it's quite complicated to implement, at least more complicated than with the 'standard' approach. So maybe for those particular cases you might want to do it the 'old' way.
If you're worried about decoupling and testing, you can still design the services as they were message handlers but use them directly, instead of a service bus.
Not sure why you would need Commands for performing the updating the information on the user's wall. Why would you choose not to use a View Model Updater for that task.
Sending an email can be considered a Command but could also easily be viewed as just another View Model update.
Not clear on what the purpose of the SendNewTripPlatformNotification is, so I cannot give any suggestions there...
Some of this could also be a candidate for a Saga. Secondly I'm missing your Domain in the diagram, that is what should be responsible for publishing any events, or do you consider the CommandHandler to be the Domain?
I am attempting to learn and apply the CQRS design approach (pattern and architecture) to a new project but seem to be missing a key piece.
My client application executes a query and retrieves a list of light-weight, read-only DTOs from the read model. The user selects an item and clicks a button to initiate some action. The action is performed by creating and sending the corresponding command object to the write model (where the command handler carries out the action, updates the data store, etc.) At some point, however, I need to update the UI to reflect changes to the state of the application resulting from the action.
How does the UI know when it is time to refresh the original list?
Additional Info
I have noticed that most articles/blogs discussing CQRS use MVC client apps in their examples. I am working on a Silverlight client right now and am beginning to wonder if the pattern simply doesn't work in that case.
Follow-Up Question
After thinking more about Bartlomiej's response and subsequent discussion, I am wondering about error handling in CQRS. Given that commands are basically fire-and-forget asynchronous operations, how do we report an error condition to the UI?
I see 'refreshing the UI' to take one of two forms:
The operation succeeds, data has changed and the UI should be updated to reflect these changes
The operation fails, data has not changed but the user should be notified of the failure and potential corrective actions.
Even with a Post-Redirect-Get pattern in an MVC, you can't really Redirect until you know the outcome of the operation. None of the examples I've seen thus far address these real-world concerns.
I've been struggling with similar issues for a WPF client. The re-query trigger for any data is dependent on the data your updating, commands tend to fall into categories:
The command is a true fire and forget method, it informs the back-end of a state change but this change does not need to be reflected in the UI, or the change simply isn't important to the UI.
The command will alter the result of a single query
The command will alter the result of multiple queries, usually (in my domain at least) in a cascading fashion, that is, changing the state of a single "high level" piece of data will likely affect many "low level" caches.
My first trigger is the page load, very few items are exempt from this as most pages must assume data has been updated since it was last visited. Though some systems may be able to escape with only updating financial and other critical data in this way.
For short commands I also update data when 'success' is returned from a command. Though this is mostly laziness as IMHO all CQRS commands should be fired asynchronously. It's still an option I couldn't live without but one you may have to if your implementation expects high latency between command and query.
One pattern I'm starting to make use of is the mediator (most MVVM frameworks come with one). When I fire a command, I also fire a message to the mediator specifying which command was launched. Each Cache (A view model property Retriever<T>) listens for commands which affect it and then updates appropriately. I try to minimise the number of messages while still minimising the number of caches that update unnecessary from a single message so I'll (hopefully) eventually end up with a shortlist of update reasons, with each 'reason' updating a list of caches.
Another approach is simple honesty, I find that by exposing graphically how the system updates itself makes users more willing to be patient with it. On firing a command show some UI indicating you're waiting for the successful response, on error you could offer to retry / show the error, on success you start the update of the relevant fields. Baring in mind that this command could have been fired from another terminal (of which you have no knowledge) so data will need to timeout eventually to avoid missing state changes invoked by other machines also.
Noting the irony that the only efficient method of updating cache's and values on a client is to un-separate the commands and queries again, be it through hardcoding or something like a hashmap.
My two cents.
I think MVVM actually fits into CQRS quite well. The ViewModel simply becomes an observable ReadModel.
1 - You initialize your ViewModel state via a query on the ReadModel.
2 - Changes on your ViewModel are automatically reflected on any Views that are bound to it.
3 - Certain changes on your ViewModel trigger a command to propegate to a message queue, an object responsible for sending those commands to the server takes those messages off the queue and sends them to the WriteModel.
4 - Clients should be well formed, meaning the ViewModel should have performed appropriate validation before it ever triggered the command. Once the command has been triggered, any event notifications can be published onto an event bus for the client to communicate changes to other ViewModels or components in the system interested in those changes. These events should carry the relevant information necessary. Typically, this means that other view models usually don't have to re-query the read model as a result of the change unless they are dependent on other data that needs to be retrieved.
5 - There is an object that connects to the message bus on the server for real-time push notifications when other clients make changes that this client is interested in knowing about, falling back to long-polling if necessary. It propagates those to the internal message bus that ties the components on the client together.
6 - The last part to handle is the fact that clients can be occasionally connected, which should be the only reason a command fails (they don't have internet access at the moment), which is when the client should be notified of problems.
In my ASP.NET MVC 3 I use 2 techniques depending on use case:
already well-known Post-Redirect-Get pattern which fits nicely with CQRS. Your MVC action that triggers the command returns a redirection to action that performs a query.
in some cases, like real-time updates of other clients, I rely on domain events/messages. I create an event handler that uses singlarR to push changes to all connected and interested clients.
There are two major ways you can take as far as I know :
1) design your UI , so that the user does not see its changes right away. Like for instance a message to tell him his action is a success, and offering him different choices to continue his work. this should buy you enough time to have updated your readmodel.
2) more complex, but you might keep the information you have send to the server and shows them in the interface.
The most important I guess, educate your user if you can so that they know why the data is not here... yet!
I am thinking about it only now, but these are for sync command handling, not async, in async things go really harder on the brain...the client interface becomes an event eater too..
I just got asked to reduce the traffic made by my GWT app. There is one method that checks for status.
This method is an asynchronous call wrapped in a Timer. I know web apps are stateless and all that, but I do wonder if there is some other way to do this, or if everyone has a Timer wrapped around a call when they need this kind of behaviour.
You can check out gwteventservice. It claims to have a way to push server events and notify the client.
I have a feeling they might be implemented as long running (hanging) client to server RPC calls which time out after an interval (say 20sec), and then are re-made. The server returns the callback if an event happens in the meanwhile.
I haven't used it personally but know of people using it to push events to the client. Have a look at the docs . If my assumption is correct, the idea is to send an RPC call to the server which does not return (hangs). If an event happens on the server, the server responds and that RPC call returns with the event. If there is no event, the call will time out in 20 seconds. Then a new call is made to the server which hangs in the same way until there is an event.
What this achieves is that it reduces the number of calls to the server to either one for each event (if there is one), or a call once every 20 seconds (if there isn't one). It looks like the 20 sec interval can be configured.
I imagine that if there is no event the amount of data sent back will be minimal - it might be possible to cancel the callback entirely, or have it fail without data transfer, but I don't really know.
Here is another resource on ServerPush - which is likely what's implemented by gwteventservice.
Running on Google app engine you could use they Channel technology
http://code.google.com/intl/en-US/appengine/docs/java/channel/overview.html
If you need the client to get the status from the server, then you pretty much have to make a call to the server to get it's status.
You could look at reducing the size of some of your messages
You could wind back the timer so the status call goes out less often
You could "optimise" so that the timer gets reset when some other client/server IO happens (i.e. if the server replies you know it is ok, so you don't need to send the next status request).
I am attempting to show a form from a service on Vista (using .NET winforms)
Obviously the form would not show to the console user, as services are isolated in session 0.
However the experiment is to see if it is possible to "show" an invisible form and obtain a window handle & message loop
I have tried but when I issue form.Show(), only the form.Load event fires not .Shown or .FormClosing
Is there any way to capture windows messages in this way as a user application would?
I have not attempted to make the service 'interactive' as I do not wish to interact with the logged-on user.
Yes you can show a form on a service's desktop. It will not be shown to any logged in user, in fact in Vista and later OSes you cannot show it to a user even if you set the service to 'interactive'. Since the desktop is not interactive the windows messages the form receives will be slightly different but the vast majority of the events should be triggered the same in a service as they would be on an interactive desktop (I just did a quick test and got the form load, shown, activated and closing events).
One thing to remember is that in order to show a form your thread must be an STA thread and a message loop must be created, either by calling ShowDialog or Applicaton.Run. Also, remember all external interaction with the form will need to be marshaled to the correct thread using Invoke or BeginInvoke on the form instance.
This is certainly very doable but is really not recommended at all. You must be absolutely sure that the form and any components it contains will not show any unexpected UI, such as a message box, under any circumstances. The only time this method can really be justified is when you are working with a dubious quality legacy or 3rd party tool that requires handle creation in order to function properly.