I have an application in Asp.net MVC where at some point I would like to display a modal dialog to the user that would display process execution progress indicator.
The process behind the scenes does a lot of database data processing (based on existing data it generates lots of resulting records that get written back to database as well). Process may take anything from a brief moment to a very long time (depending on existing data).
Application will initiate this process asynchronously (via Ajax request) and display progress in the same manner.
The problem
I've read a bit about Async controllers where one can asynchronously start a process and will informed about the end of it but there's no progress indication and I'm not really sure how browser timeouts are handled. As far as the client goes an async request is the same as synchronous one. Client will therefore wait for response (as I understand it). the main difference being that server will execute something in async manner so it won't block other incoming requests. What I should actually do is:
make a request that would start the process and respond to the client taht process has started.
client would them periodically poll the server for process progress status getting immediate response back with percentage value (probably as JSON)
when progress would be 100% it would mean that it ended so client would know to make a request for results.
I'm not convinced that async controllers work this way...
The thing is that I'm not really sure I understand async controllers hence am not sure which approach should I use approach this problem as just described? I see two possibilities myself:
Asp.net MVC Async controllers if they can work this way
Windows Service app that processes data on request and reports its progress - this service would be started by writing a particular record to DB using a normal controller action; that would start it and then service would be writing its progress status to DB so my Asp.net MVC app would be able to read it on client process polling requests.
I haven't used Asynch controllers myself in a project. However here's a link to someone who has.
asynchronous-processing-in-asp-net-mvc-with-ajax-progress-bar
I have personally used Number 2 in a large production project.
Number 2 was a Service App running on a separate server using OpenSSH to communicate between the two servers. We'd poll for progress periodically to update the progress bar to the clients UI via AJAX.
Additionally by separating your web server from your long running process you are separating your concerns. You web server is not interested in writing files to disk, handling IO, etc and so shouldn't be burdended with such.
If your long running process has to be killed or fails then this wont affect your web server handling requests, and processing transactions.
Another suggestion would be for an extremely long running process is not to burden the client with waiting, give them an option to come back later to see the progress. I.e. send them an e-mail when its done.
Or actually show them something interesting, in our case we had a signed Java Applet show exactly what their process is doing at that exact moment.
Related
I implemented an UWP Server Socket following the sample here and it correctly works.
Now I want to make the app able to continuously accept requests, but I expect that when the app is suspendeded and a client sends a request, the server is not able to respond. If I am correct, what is the best way to avoid this status change? If possible, I would prefer a solution with Extended Execution instead of implementing a Background Task, but I don't know if the following code in the OnSuspending method is enough to keep the app in the Running status:
var newSession = new ExtendedExecutionSession();
newSession.Reason = ExtendedExecutionReason.Unspecified;
newSession.Revoked += SessionRevoked;
I saw people calling a "LongRunningWork()" function in other samples, but in my case the code to execute is already defined in the code-behind of the view as shown in the link above, so I would like simply keeping the app always running. Keep in mind that it is a LOB application, so I don't have Store limits.
As far as I understand, in a CQRS-oriented API exposed through a RESTful HTTP API the commands and queries are expressed through the HTTP verbs, the commands being asynchronous and usually returning 202 Accepted, while the queries get the information you need. Someone asked me the following: supposing they want to change some information, they would have to send a command and then a query to get the resulting state, why to force the client to make two HTTP requests when you can simply return what they want in the HTTP response of the command in a single HTTP request?
We had a long conversation in DDD/CRQS mailing list a couple of months ago (link). One part of the discussion was "one way command" and this is what I think you are assuming. You can find out that Greg Young is opposed to this pattern. A command changes the state and therefore prone to failure, meaning it can fail and you should support this. REST API with POST/PUT requests provide perfect support for this but you should not just return 202 Accepted but really give some meaningful result back. Some people return 200 success and also some object that contains a URL to retrieve the newly created or updated object. If the command handler fails, it should return 500 and an error message.
Having fire-and-forget commands is dangerous since it can give a consumer wrong ideas about the system state.
My team also recently had a very heated discussion about this very thing. Thanks for posting the question. I have usually been the defender of the "fire and forget" style commands. My position has always been that, if you want to be able to move to an async command dispatcher some day, then you cannot allow commands to return anything. Doing so would kill your chances since an async command doesn't have much of a way to return a value to the original http call. Some of my team mates really challenged this thinking so I had to start thinking if my position was really worth defending.
Then I realized that async or not async is JUST an implementation detail. This led me to realize that, using our frameworks, we can build in middleware to accomplish the same thing our async dispatchers are doing. So, we can build our command handlers the way we want to, returning what ever makes sense, and then let the framework around the handlers deal with the "when".
Example: My team is building an http API in node.js currently. Instead of requiring a POST command to only return a blank 202, we are returning details of the newly created resource. This helps the front-end move on. The front-end POSTS a widget and opens a channel to the server's web socket using the same command as the channel name. the request comes to the server and is intercepted by middleware which passes it to the service bus. When the command is eventually processed synchronously by the handler, it "returns" via the web socket and the front-end is happy. The middleware can be disabled easily, making the API synchronous again.
There is nothing stopping you from doing that. If you execute your commands synchronously and create your projections synchronously, then it will be easy for you to just make a query directly after executing the command and returning that result. If you do this asynchronously via the rest-api, then you have no query result to send back. If you do it asynchronously within your system, then you can wait for the projection to be created and then send the response to the client.
The important thing is that you separate your write and read models in classic CQRS style. That does not mean that you cannot do a read in the same request as you do the command. Sure, you can send a command to the server and then with SignalR (or something) wait for a notification that your projection have been created/updated. I do not see a problem with waiting for the projection to be created on the server side instead for on the client.
How you do this will affect you infrastructure and error handling. Also, you will hold the HTTP request open for a longer time if you return the result at once.
I am working on a chat client. To get new messages (or post new one) I have to perform GET (or POST) request. All new messages are stored via core data. At the moment I don't know how to implement it in most optimal way.
My thoughts:
On view controller init stage create background thread which will periodically checks for new messages (if conversation is active - with short period, if not - with period about 60 secs). If there are new messages, we store them in DB and signal delegate that there are new messages to display.
Friend suggested to use performSelector afterDelay, but I don't understand how to use it in my app.
Something else?
Thanks in advance.
Don't use performSelector afterDelay. Using NSTimer is much better (as the trigger for starting the next download). Also, use NSOperationQueue to manage your background tasks. Create yourself a custom NSOperation that you can instantiate and it will complete your request process. When you create a new operation to check for new messages, check if one is already in progress (there is no point having multiple requests in progress at the same time).
Other notes:
Make sure you consider the threading with regards to the Core Data store (having the operation call back to the main thread with the results will probably be easiest as the result data will always be relatively small).
If you have lots of messages being sent and you want to show constant status (like Skype does, showing you when someone is typing) you would need to use sockets to keep the connection alive the whole time (the cost of new connections each time would be prohibitive).
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 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.