I've deployed to Azure and Azure SQL, which doesn't support MSDTC and I'm having trouble understanding how to rework my code to prevent what I assume is nested connections. I'm fairly new to EF and my knowledge of TransactionScope is not wonderful, so I'm not sure that I have the right pattern.
I am trying to use repos, which call on a shared instance of the ObjectContext (I tried to dispose on EndRequest but had issues, so this is another problem for me).
I have a transaction which calls SaveChanges on the ObjectContext instance several times, but at some point it becomes disposed. What is governing this and can you recommend what I can do to get it working correctly?
If you want to avoid issues with distributed transaction you must handle connection manually because you need only one opened connection per TransactionScope = one context instance with one connection used for all queries and database updates. The code should look like:
using (var context = new YourObjectContext()) {
context.Connection.Open();
...
}
I am trying to use repos, which call on a shared instance of the
ObjectContext (I tried to dispose on EndRequest but had issues, so
this is another problem for me).
If you share your context instance among multiple request or even worse if you use just single context instance to handle all your requests you should stop now and completely redesign your application. Otherwise it will not work correctly.
Related
We have kind of an interesting situation here. We are using the repository pattern with Entity Framework so each database table has its own Repository class that accepts an instance of a DbContext in its constructor. We are also using Ninject for dependency injection. We have defined a single context to be instantiated during a given request so that when a multiple of repositories ask for a DbContext, the same instance is used throughout. This allows us to follow a UnitOfWork pattern so multiple things can occur on multiple repositories and a single commit will commit all changes to the database.
Here is the issue, we are also using SQL Azure Federations which splits up our client data into multiple databases (sharding). We need to be able to jump from one federation member (database) to another within the same request but want to be able to use the same service/repository methods that are dependent upon the injected context. Our first thought was to just execute the USE FEDERATION sql command on the existing context to move to the next database but it seems to work sometimes and not others. After executing the statement we see that the underlying connection on the context really is pointing to the new server but for some reason queries executed on that context end up returning results from the previous connection. I presume using the same instance of a context on multiple database is not something that is really natively supported as you would normally spin up a new context when connecting to a new database. Unfortunately we have a bunch of repositories that are created dynamically using Ninject which then take in the same instance of the context so even if we do spin up a new context for the new database, we have no way to making all the existing repositories suddenly become dependent upon the new context we just spun up instead of the one that was created at the initial request.
Here are a few solutions we can think of but are not sure how to get any of them to work:
Change the database used on an existing context (as explained above but didn't seem to work)
Swap out an injected context for all repositories with a new one so that all existing repositories now become dependent upon a different context
Somehow request from Ninject a new instance of all the repositories passing in the parameters needed for the context once it is requested.
Again, bottom line here is we have a set of repositories and services that are dependent upon a single Context and we want to be able to reuse those services and repositories but swap out or change the context, on which all are dependent, to point to a new server.
Solution was to just completely drop Ninject out of the scenario. Not the best solution but the tools we are using were not really designed to do what we wanted in the environment we are working.
I have created several custom activities that update tables in my DB (in this case SQL Server Compact), using Entity Framework 4 with POCOs.
If I put more than one of these inside a WF4 TransactionScope activity, I'm running into problems: EF disposes the DB connection after the first activity has finished, and when the next DB activity tries to do a DB update a new connection is built up. At this moment an exception is thrown.
System.Activities.WorkflowApplicationAbortedException : The workflow has been aborted.
----> System.Data.EntityException : The underlying provider failed on Open.
----> System.InvalidOperationException : The connection object can not be enlisted in transaction scope.
Do I have to keep the EF connection open during the whole transaction scope? How can I do that? Create an explicit custom activity for that, or is there a standard way?
My current workaround goes like this: I created a new code activity that creates our ObjectContext and explicitely calls dbContext.Connection.Open(). It returns the ObjectContext, which is then saved in a workflow variable. That one is passed to all the DB related activities as an InArgument<>. Inside my DB activities, I use this ObjectContext if it is passed in, otherwise I create a new one.
This does work, but I'm not satisfied with this solution: It needs the new InArgument for every DB related activity. In the workflow designer, I have to insert that special OpenDatabaseConnection activity inside the transaction scope, and then make sure that the correct variable is passed into all DB activities. This seems to be very inelegant and error prone, especially if other team members have to use these DB activities.
What would be a better way to handle this?
The problem is that when you open a second connection in the same transaction scope, an attempt is made to promote the transaction to a distributed transaction (even though there's nothing distributed about it since you connect to the same database). SQL Server CE doesn't support this scenario.
What I would do is create a custom 'container' activity that opens (and closes) the connection and makes it available to child activities. This is still not optimal but at least you no longer need to pass InArgument's around. You get the following activity tree:
TransactionScope
InitializeConnection
Sequence
CustomDataActivity1
CustomDataActivity2
CustomDataActivity3
InitializeConnection is a NativeActivity that uses NativeActivityContext.Properties to expose the connection (or the ObjectContext) to child activities.
Make sure you implement proper error handling to ensure you close the connection at all times.
NOTE: Distributed transactions are supported by the full SQL Server only through a Windows service called MSDTC (Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator). You can find this one in your 'Local Services'. Since SQL Server CE is a database that should be able to operate completely standalone, it makes sense that it has no dependency on MSDTC. Therefore it has no support for distributed transactions.
In my MVC controllers, I'm using an IoC container (Ninject), but am not sure how to best use when it comes to the Entity Framework ObjectContext.
Currently, I'm doing something like:
using(var context = new MyObjectContext())
{
var stuff = m_repository.GetStuff(context);
}
This is the best way to manage from the point of view of keeping the database connection open for the shortest time possible.
If I were to create the ObjectContext via Ninject on a per request basis, this obviously keeps the database connection open for too long.
Also the above code would become...
var stuff = m_repository.GetStuff(m_myObjectContext);
(And when would I dispose of the context...?)
Should I be creating a factory for the ObjectContext and pass that in via DI? This would loosen the coupling, but does this really help with testability if there is no easy means of maintaining an interface for the ObjectContext (that I know of)?.
Is there a better way? Thanks
This is the best way to manage from the point of view of keeping the
database connection open for the shortest time possible.
If I were to create the ObjectContext via Ninject on a per request
basis, this obviously keeps the database connection open for too long.
Entity Framework will close the connection directly after the execution of each query (except when supplying an open connection from the outside), so your argument for doing things like this does not hold.
In the past I used to have by business logic (my command handlers to be precise) have control over the context (create, commit, and dispose it), but the downside is that you need to pass on this context to all other methods and all dependencies. When the application logic gets more complex, this results in less readable, less maintainable code.
For that reason I moved to a model where the unit of work (your MyObjectContext) is created, committed, and disposed outside the control of the business logic. This allows you to inject the unit of work into all dependencies and reuse the same unit of work for all objects. Downside is that this makes your DI configuration a bit harder. Some things your need to make sure of:
The unit of work must be created as per web request or within a certain scope.
The unit of work must be disposed at the end of the request or scope (although it is probably not a problem when the DbContext is not disposed, since the underlighing connection is closed and DbContext does not implemente a finalizer).
You need to explicitly commit the unit of work, but you can't do this at the end of the web request, since at that point you have no idea whether it is safe to commit (since you don't want to commit when your business logic threw an exception, but at the end of the request there is no way to correctly detect if this actually happened).
One tip I can give you is to model the business logic in the system around command handlers, since this allows you do define a single decorator that handles the transactional behavior (committing the unit of work and perhaps even running everything in a database transaction) at a single point. This decorator can be wrapped around each handler in the system.
I must admit that I have no idea how to register generic types and generic decorators with Ninject, but you'll probably get an answer quickly when asking here at Stackoverflow.
Considering this class
public class XQueries
{
public IQueryable Query1()
{
using (XEntities context = new XEntities())
{
return something;
}
}
public IQueryable Query2()
{
using (XEntities context = new XEntities())
{
return somethingElse;
}
}
}
Is a connection to the database created for every (XEntities context = new XEntities()) {...} ? If so what is the correct way to create a static UnitOfWork class so that only 1 connection to exist?
You can't create a static unit of work, because by definition a unit of work is a short lived object. Because the EF ObjectContext is designed around the unit of work pattern it is a bad idea to have a single ObjectContext instance during the life time of the application. There are several reasons for this.
First of all, the ObjectContext class is not thread-safe. This means that during the unit of work of one user (in a web app for instance), another user can commit his unit of work. When they share the same ObjectContext, it means that in that situation just half of the changes are persisted and changes are not transactional. When you are lucky the ObjectContext fails and throws an exception. When you are unlucky, you corrupt the ObjectContext and safe and load crap from and to your database and find out when your application is running in production (of course, during testing and staging everything always seems to work).
Second, the ObjectContext has a caching mechanism that is designed for it to be short lived. When an entity is retrieved from the database it stays in the ObjectContext’s cache until that instance is garbage collected. When you keep that instance alive for a long period of time, entities get stale. Especially if that particular ObjectContext instance is not the only one writing to that database.
The Entity Framework opens connections only when required, for example to execute a query or to call SaveChanges, and then closes the connection when the operation is complete.
From Martin Fowler’s book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture in respect to Unit Of Work.
When you're pulling data in and out of
a database, it's important to keep
track of what you've changed;
otherwise, that data won't be written
back into the database. Similarly you
have to insert new objects you create
and remove any objects you delete.
You can change the database with each
change to your object model, but this
can lead to lots of very small
database calls, which ends up being
very slow. Furthermore it requires you
to have a transaction open for the
whole interaction, which is
impractical if you have a business
transaction that spans multiple
requests. The situation is even worse
if you need to keep track of the
objects you've read so you can avoid
inconsistent reads.
A Unit of Work keeps track of
everything you do during a business
transaction that can affect the
database. When you're done, it figures
out everything that needs to be done
to alter the database as a result of
your work.
Whenever I use Entity Framework for a clients (which I'd admit is rare) the ObjectContext object is the Unit Of Work implementation for the system. That is the ObjectContext will somewhat meet the three statements above. Rather than concentrating too much on the absolutely correct definition using the ObjectContext makes things a little easier for you.
Do some research on DI/IoC and Repository patterns this will give you more flexibility in handling your problem.
This problem is not readily reproducible in a simple example here but was wondering if anyone has any experience and tips, here is the issue:
using Entity Framework
have many points in application where (1) data is written to some entity table e.g. Customer, (2) data is written to history table
both of these actions use Entity Framework, HOWEVER, they use different contexts
these actions need to be both in one transaction: i.e. if one fails to write, the other should not write, etc.
I can wrap them with a TransactionScope,
like this:
using (TransactionScope txScope = new TransactionScope()) {
...
}
but this gives me:
Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator (MSDTC) is disabled for
network transactions.
Our database admin has told me that MSDTC is disabled by choice and can not be installed.
Hence I am making changes trying to create my own EntityConnection with a MetadataWorkspace with the idea that each context will use the same EntityConnection. However, this is proving near impossible trying to get it to work, e.g. currently I continue to get the above error even though theoretically both contexts are using EntityConnection. It's difficult to understand where/why Entity Framework is requiring the MSDTC for example.
Has anyone gone down this road before, have experience or code examples to share?
Well, the problem is quite easy.
If you are using sql server 2008 you should not have that problem because you have promotable transaction, and as .NET knows that you are using the same persistence store (the database) it wont promote it to DTC and commit it as local. look into promotable transaction with sql server 2008.
As far as I know Oracle is working in its driver to support promotable transactions, but I do not know the state, MS oracle driver does not support it.
http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/windows/odpnet/col/odp.net_11.1.0.7.20_twp.pdf
If you are using a driver that do not support promotable transactions it is impossible for .NET to use local transaction doing two connections. You should change your architecture or convince the database admin for installing MSDTC.
I had a similar problem with SQL 2008, Entity Framework.
I had two frameworks defined (EF1, and EF2) but using identical connection strings to a sql 2008 database.
I got the MSDTC error above, when using nested "usings" across both.
eg the code was like this:
using (TransactionScope dbContext = new TransactionScope())
{
using (EF1 context = new EF1())
{
// do some EF1 db call
using (EF2 context2 = new EF2())
{
// do some EF2 db call
}
}
dbContext.Complete();
}
It wasnt as simple as this, because it was split across several methods, but this was the basic structure of "usings".
The fix was to only open one using at a time. No MTDSC error, No need to open distributed transactions on db.
using (TransactionScope dbContext = new TransactionScope())
{
using (EF1 context = new EF1())
{
// do some EF1 db call
}
using (EF2 context2 = new EF2())
{
// do some EF2 db call
}
dbContext.Complete();
}
I think that what you need to do is to force your contexts to share single database connection. You will be able then to perform these two operations against two different contexts in single transaction. You can achieve this by passing one EntityConnection object to both of your context's constructors. Of course this approach will require you to pass this object to methods which update DB.
I have recently blogged about creating database context scope which will make using multiple EF contexts and transactions easier.