I made an app that I'm deploying as EAR on WAS 8.5. This app works as an app that constantly checks on a DataQueue and transfer whatever message it finds to an MQ. Since I've been testing it, I realized that if I start it, it remains starting the application indefinitely (since it's an endless loop that checks on the queue). Even without the loop, the read() function of the dataqueue reads indefinitely until it finds a message, what also makes the starting of the app to don't end.
Reflecting on it, I realize that an EAR (with WARs, JARs, etc) it's an app that expects a request (if not all, most of the time). So if it's an endless loop, it won't end the starting of the EAR.
Maybe there's another way to deploy this application on WAS. Is there a way to deploy the app so it will be like a background process that does everything I previously mentioned?
There are 2 solutions to this:
Use MDBs and ensure that you receive the message is a message listener thread. This will ensure that threading is completely taken care by WAS.
Here is an article about using threads in WAS: http://wpcertification.blogspot.in/2010/09/developing-multi-threaded-application.html .
Related
I have a WCF Windows Workflow (4.5) Workflow Service hosted under IIS and using AppFabric 1.1. The workflow instances are long-running (up to about a week), but much of the time is spent in Delay activities.
This seemed to work fine at first, but when running multiple instances of the workflow at the same time (2+ instances causes this), some of them just never wake up once they've unloaded from memory during the Delay step. When I look at the logs, the errors I find all look like this:
System.OperationCanceledException: The execution of InstancePersistenceCommands has been canceled because the InstanceHandle was freed.
at System.Runtime.AsyncResult.End[TAsyncResult](IAsyncResult result)
at System.ServiceModel.Activities.Dispatcher.DurableInstanceManager.WaitAndHandleStoreEventsCallback(IAsyncResult result)
Unfortunately, I'm not finding any useful information on that error message.
The SuspensionExceptionName and SuspensionReason fields in the AppFabric Persisted Instances Table show System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. But this doesn't happen inside my workflow, only outside.
Additional Info:
I'm running the activity as a Fire & Forget (receive activity, no send)
My workflow calls into other WCF services to fetch data.
I am running this on Server 2012 R2, IIS 8 (not azure)
Workflow Persistence is working. I can reset IIS, reboot... its just when I run 2 instances that it has problems.
I'm definitely not hitting any kind of throttling limits. While the workflow deals with a few MB of data, this issue happens at 2+ instances.
Any idea what might be happening here?
Edit:
I realized I found more information on how the issue operates and never added it to the question. When the delay issue happens, it operates a lot like a static variable getting written by 2 threads.
Here's a visualization:
WF1 Start ---->Do Stuff--->Sleep------------*1----->Cancelled Exception at some point
------WF 2 Start---->Do Stuff------->Sleep->Wake up---------*2------>More Stuff---->End Successfully
*1 - When WF Instance 1 Should Wake up (Same time as WF 2 wakes)
*2 - When WF Instance 2 Should have woken up (Seems to be ignored)
Before anyone asks... I got rid of every static variable, method, class in my code. Nothing is static anymore.
I've been struggling with similar issues for quite a while. I use WFW4 and I find similar errors when a workflow instance is in a long delay.
I don't know what the cause of the problem is, but I have a work around that you might find helpful.
In my case, the errors I get are from Workflow Management Service and say:
Failed to invoke service management endpoint at 'net.pipe://.svc' to activate service '/Alerts/Workflows/.xamlx'. Exception: 'Access is denied.'
These errors start happening sometime between 6 and 30 hours after the instance goes into a long delay.
I have found that if I create a new instance of the workflow when the first instance is in delay and the errors are happening, then Workflow Management Service is able to resume interacting with the first sleeping instance.
So, I made a new workflow whose sole purpose is to periodically launch and then kill instances of the workflow that contains the long delay.
It actually gets a bit more complicated to make this work. I wanted this new workflow to also go to sleep between times when it creates and kills a new instance of the first workflow. But this going to sleep causes the instance of the new workflow to suffer the same problem as the first workflow. So, I modified the new workflow so it does the following:
-- delay for some rather short period, such as 30 minutes
-- create an instance of the first workflow
-- wait a minute
-- kill the just-created instance of the first workflow
-- create a new instance of this new error-preventing workflow
-- terminate
Since having done this, I no longer get the Access is Denied error from Workflow Management Service!
Hope this helps
Turns out my first answer was not correct, but I believe this answer is right, and solves the issue ChrisG is having.
My workaround did not actually work. Took a while for the problem to resurface. 29 hours to be precise - the default time it takes for an app pool to recycle.
So for me, the solution was to make my app pool not recycle. When an app pool recycles while a workflow instance is in a delay activity, the workflowManagementService is not able to wake up the instance and throws Access is Denied errors. If you create a new instance of the workflow after the app pool has recycled, the first instance will pick up where it left off, but sometimes still has problems, which is what I believe is happening to ChrisG.
ChrisG, looking at your visualization, is it possible that an appPool is recycling during the time wf1 is sleeping? I believe that is the cause the exception. If you then launch a new wf instance after *2 has passed (and if an app pool recycle happened prior to *1), that will wake up both wf1 and wf2, but wf1 won't work properly (at least in my experience)
Also, this happens after iisresets and server reboots. To handle those, you need to use IIS7 which allows the web application (as well as the web site) which is hosting the xamlx files to autostart after an iisreset or server reboot. This option is not available in IIS6. See http://www.postseek.com/meta/991815402b369e71ce925cde47ac907d for details
Hope this helps!
I added a program to a Mule project in order to avoid duplication of code. They are both REST, access the same webservice and return json. The first service's threading profile looked like this:
<configuration doc:name="Configuration">
<default-receiver-threading-profile maxThreadsActive="10" poolExhaustedAction="WAIT" threadWaitTimeout="10000" maxBufferSize="100" maxThreadsIdle="2" >
</configuration>
When I added my second service, the same threading profile caused the program to hang endlessly. No log entries, no nothing. Raising max active threads to 1000, or even deleting the WAIT option doesn't do anything. It's only when I change "maxThreadsIdle" to 3 or higher, or delete maxBufferSize or delete the entire thing that both can work in the same project. One other thing...when I edit the mule flow and save, the program automatically launches again. Oddly enough, the results end up appearing in any browser I left hanging from trying to submit.
What I want to know is why the min threads needs to be set to 3 or higher...I mean what the heck is actually going on here? Ideally, I would like to keep the threading configuration set to what I have here.
I have an iPad app that works both on and offline but when I am offline there are web service calls that will need to be made once online availability is an option again.
Example:
A new client is added to the app, this needs to be sent to the web service but since we are offline we dont want to slow the user down so we let them add locally and keep going but we need to remember that that call needs to be made to the web service when we can. Same thing for placing orders and such.
Is there some sort of queue that can be setup that will fire once we have connectivity?
I don't think the overhead of a heavyweight tool like MSMQ is needed for a simple action. You can use Core Data, persist managed objects with the data needed to call the web service, and only delete each managed object after a successful post. There might or might not be a way to capture an event when connectivity starts, but you can certainly create a repeating NSTimer when the first message is queued and stop it when there are no messages in the queue.
This library handles offline persistent message queueing for situations like you describe. It says alpha from a year ago, but I have confirmed it is used in production apps:
https://github.com/gcamp/IPOfflineQueue
My iPhone application supports a proprietary network protocol using the CocoaAsyncSocket library. I need to be able to send a network message out when my iPhone application is closed. The code that sends the message is getting called from the app delegate, but the application shuts down before the message actually goes out. Is there a way to keep the application alive long enough for the message to go out?
Bruce
The docs from Apple don't specifically state this, but the sense I get from looking around the Web and from personal experience is that you have about 4 to 5 seconds after the user hits the Home button to shut your app before your application actually terminates. The iPhone OS is controlling this so you can't block the termination to allow your program to finish first. Basically when your time is up, your program is killed.
There may be another solution, though. First I'd confirm that your code is really taking more than 5 seconds to run. Perhaps you can have it run in response to a button tap, and time how long it runs. If it is more than 5 seconds, you probably are running into this time out issue.
You might then find a way to trigger a message to be sent from a server that is always running. You should have enough time to trigger a remote action, which in turn could then take as long as it needs to run.
Or perhaps you could save the vital information to the iPhone file system on exit, and send that message the next time someone starts the application, which should theoretically give you enough time.
Hope this helps!
I assume you're already calling it from your AppDelegate's:
- (void)applicationWillTerminate:(UIApplication *)application
But as you've discovered there's no guarantee it'll be called or will be allowed to finish. There are a few options that may or may not work depending on what you're trying to do:
If you need the server to perform some sort of cleaning operation triggered by when the client app is gone then you could try watching for TCP socket closure on the server and treating that as the triggering event. But if you explicitly need to send data back with the closure this may not work.
If the data you're sending back is not time-sensitive then you can do like most of the analytics libraries do and cache the data (along with a uuid) on the client then try to send it on app closure. If it goes through, you can clear the cache (or do it the next time the app is run). If it doesn't, it's saved and you can send out when the app is run next. On the server, you would use the uuid to avoid duplicate requests.
If the material is time-sensitive then your best bet is to implement heartbeat and send periodic updated values to the server. Then when the client app dies the server times out the heartbeat and can use the last received value as the final closing point of data.
In either case, if an explicit closure event is required by your custom protocol then you may want to reconsider using it in a real-life mobile environment where things have to be much more fluid and tolerant of failure.
As others have noted, there's no way to be absolutely certain that you'll be able to send this, but there are approaches to help.
As Ken notes, you do in practice get a few seconds between "willTerminate" and forced termination, so there generally is time to do what you need.
A problem you're almost certainly running into is with CocoaAsyncSocket. When you get the "willTerminate" message, you're on the last run loop of the main thread. So if you block the main thread, and CocoaAsyncSocket is running on the main thread, it'll never get processed. As I recall, CocoaAsyncSocket won't actually send all the data until the next event loop.
One approach, therefore, is to keep pumping the event loop yourself:
- (void)applicationWillTerminate:(UIApplication *)application
{
// ...Send your message with CocoaAsyncSocket...
while (! ...test to see if it sent...)
{
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runMode:NSDefaultRunLoopMode beforeDate:[NSDate distantFuture]];
}
}
I've also looked at putting this work onto a background thread and letting the main thread terminate, in theory letting us go back to Springboard while continuing to run for a few seconds. It's not immediately clear to me whether this will work properly using NSThread (which are detached). Using POSIX threads (which are joinable by default) may work, but probably circumvents any advantages of the background thread. Anyway, it's something to look at if useful. In my apps, we've used the "post next time we launch" approach, since that always works (even if you crash).
I have a web application that I am adding workflow functionality to using Windows Workflow Foundation. I have based my solution around K. Scott Allen's Orders Workflow example on OdeToCode. At the start I didn't realise the significance of the caveat "if you use Delay activities with and configure active timers for the manual scheduling service, these events will happen on a background thread that is not associated with an HTTP request". I now need to use Delay activities and it doesn't work as is with his solution architecture. Has anyone come across this and found a good solution to this? The example is linked to from a lot of places but I haven't seen anyone else come across this issue and it seems like a bit of a show stopper to me.
Edit: The problem is that the results from the workflow are returned to the the web application via HttpContext. I am using the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers and this works fine for most situations because workflow events are fired from the web app and HttpContext still exists when the workflow results are returned and the web app can continue processing. When a delay activity is used processing happens on a background thread and when it tries to return results to the web app, there is no valid HttpContext (because there has been no Http Request), so further processing fails. That is, the webapp is trying to process the workflow results but there has been no http request.
I think I need to do all post Delay activity processing within the workflow rather than handing off to the web app.
Cheers.
You didn't describe the problem you are having. But maybe this is of some help.
You can use the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers and the workflow will continue on another thread. Normally this is fine because your HTTP request has already finished and it doesn't really matter.
If however you need full control the workflow runtime will let you get a handle on all loaded workflows using the GetLoadedWorkflows() function. This will return acollection of WorkflowInstance objects. usign these you can can call the GetWorkflowNextTimerExpiration() to check which is expired. If one is you can manually resume it. In this case you want to use the ManualWorkflowSchedulerService with the useActiveTimers=false so you can control the last thread as well. However in most cases using useActiveTimers=true works perfectly well.