Comparing Blazor Server with Blazor WebAssembly, I find one striking difference that might/should have a great impact on the application design. Let me outline that difference on the basis of a simple requirement:
Clicking a button to increase a counter and whenever the counter reaches 10, the button will be disabled.
Let's compare:
Blazor WebAssembly: The click event handler executes synchronously directly in the browser right after the user has clicked the button. The counter is increased and the condition gets checked. If the counter is 10, the button will be disabled using property binding. There is no way the user could have clicked an eleventh time.
Blazor Server: The click event handler executes asynchronously on the server, only after the click event has been published to the channel and received by the server. This might take an arbitrary amount of time, depending on the internet connection. The counter gets increased on the server and the condition gets checked. However, before the browser gets informed about the potential state change of the button, the user can click the button one or many more times, causing the event handler on the server to be executed again, potentially increasing the counter more than is allowed.
As a programmer using Blazor Server, I can no longer rely on the synchronous uninterrupted handling of user interaction events that I may be used to in JavaScript applications. I have to clutter all my event handlers with additional sanity checks just to make sure nothing unexpected happens. This also prevent a straightforward migration from Blazor WebAssembly to Blazor Server (and frankly, vice-versa).
Note that I am not convinced by the argument that the latency is so small that no real user is able to click again before the GUI is updated. Even for very controlled network conditions delays might happen unexpectedly. Also, it is never a good choice to rely on chance and external factors. Remember Murphy's Law?
My question is: How do you deal with this in practice? Do you bother writing all these sanity checks in your event handlers?
I concluded that in order to treat Blazor WebAssembly and Blazor Server equally at the source code level, you have to apply certain patterns and restrictions for yourself, as otherwise the runtime behaviors might differ.
One of these things is the input delay happening in Blazor Server. Even if it is – or should be – small, you still have to address it if you prefer to prevent nasty bugs when switching from WebAssembly to Server.
One way to address it is to guard each and every event handler (that reacts to a user interaction event) with code assuring that the state of the frontend is indeed such that this handler can safely be executed. In a "traditional" SPA web application (like Angular) you should guard against undesired operations on the server-side anyway, so do you in Blazor applications. However, in a Blazor application, you also additionally have to guard your frontend much more tightly, all because you can not rely on uninterrupted synchronous handler execution.
In my opinion, Blazor is a leaky abstraction, as the decision between WebAssembly and Server is not merely an implementation detail.
I'd disable all buttons on click via javascript and enable them after save
Related
Use a StackOverflow Q&A thread as an example - when you vote up, vote down, or favorite a question, you can see the UI quickly respond to that action with changes in the # of up-votes on the side.
How can we achieve that effect? If send every of such action to back-end for processing and use the returned response to update UI, you will see a slow update and feel the glitches. But if put some of the logic on the front-end, you will also need to take care of the fraud/abuse etc before reflecting the action on UI, i.e - before changing the # of up-votes, don't you need to make sure that's a valid click by an valid user first?
You make sure that a valid user is using the app before a user clicks on anything. This is done through authentication, and it must include various protection mechanisms against malicious users.
When a user clicks, a call is made to a server. In a properly architected app this call is lightweight, and the server responds very quickly. I don't know why you believe that "you will see a slow update and feel the glitches". Adding an upvote to the database should take a few hundred milliseconds at most (including the roundtrip from the client), especially if the commit is asynchronous or a memcache is used.
If a database update results in a need to do some complex operations, typically these operations are not done right away. For example, a cron job may run periodically to compute new rankings, etc., precisely because you do not want every user to wait. Alternatively, a task is created and put in a task queue to be executed when resources are available - again to make sure that a user does not wait.
In some apps a UI is updated immediately after the call to the server is made, before any response from a server arrives. You can do it when the consequences of a failed call are negligible. For example, if an upvote fails to be saved in the database, it's not a disaster, especially if it happens once in a million tries. Again, in a properly architected app calls fail extremely rarely.
This is a decision that an app developer needs to make. I would not update a UI before a server response if such an update may lead a user to believe that some other action is now possible. For example, if a user uploads a new photo, I would not show icons to edit or share this photo until I know that the photo is safely saved.
I am developing a social network in ASP.NET MVC 3. Every user has must have the ability to see connected people.
What is the best way to do this?
I added a flag in the table Contact in my database, and I set it to true when the user logs in and set it to false when he logs out.
But the problem with this solution is when the user closes the browser without logging out, he will still remain connected.
The only way to truly know that a user is currently connected is to maintain some sort of connection between the user and the server. Two options immediately come to mind:
Use javascript to periodically call your server using ajax. You would have a special endpoint on your server that would be used to update a "last connected time" status, and you would have a second endpoint for users to poll to see who is online.
Use a websocket to maintain a persistent connection with your server
Option 1 should be fairly easy to implement. The main thing to keep in mind that this will increase the amount of requests coming into your server, and you will have to plan accordingly in order handle the traffic this could generate. You will have some control over the amount of load on your server by configuring how often javascript timer calls back to your server.
Option 2 could be a little more involved if you did this without library support. Of course there are libraries out there such as SignalR that make this really easy to do. This also has an impact on the performance of your site since each user will be maintaining a persistent connection. The advantage with this approach is that it reduces the need for polling like option 1 does. If you use this approach it would also be very easy to push a message to user A that user B has gone offline.
I guess I should also mention a really easy 3rd option as well. If you feel like your site is pretty interactive, you could just track the last time they made a request to your site. This of course may not give you enough accuracy to determine whether a user is "connected".
I would like to create an application that will monitor apps running on my machine, and respond to situations where an application has beachballed. Is it possible (using any of the various OSX programming tools -- I'll teach myself Objective-C for this) to detect whether this has happened? If so, can someone give me a short code sample that does so?
I'm afraid I don't the actual classes or functions involved, but I can give you an outline of the process.
First, understand that every Application (perhaps every Window) has an event queue backing it. Each is serviced by a thread that just pops an event* off the queue, does some processing, and then returns to waiting for the next event. A "beachball" comes up (when forced by the system) when the event queue isn't getting serviced quickly enough. A "frozen" event queue implies that an application locked up when responding to some event in the past.
Now - outside of debugging contexts - you shouldn't be able to reach into another application and fiddle with a thread's event queue to see if its getting serviced. But what you could do instead is periodically post an event that would illicit a response, and if ever that response doesn't come you know the application is "locked up".
This constitutes polling, so be wary of the performance implications.
*Events are things like key down, key up, mouse moved, repaint, and so on.
Besides the WindowServer itself, the other system components that I know of that can detect unresponsiveness are the force quit dialog, spindump (which collects sampling profiles of applications while they are unresponsive), and Activity Monitor (presumably via its pmTool privileged subprocess). Perhaps running strings on pmTool might provide hints about what system calls to use?
Note that none of these evidently does its job by polling, because no application is ever detected as unresponsive until it fails to respond to an event — if an application hangs/does a lot of computation without checking its event queue, but it receives no events during that time, then it is not reported as unresponsive.
I have noticed that some of my ajax-heavy sites (ones I visit, not ones I have built), have certain auto-refresh features. For example, in GMail, if I get a new message, I see the new message without a page reload. It's the same with the Facebook browser-based IM client. From what I can tell, there aren't any java applets handling the server-browser binding, so I'm left to assume it's being done by AJAX and perhaps some element I'm unaware of. So by my best guess, it's done in one of two ways:
The javascript does a steady "ping" to a server-side script, checking for any updates that might be available (which would explain why some of these pages bring any other heavy-duty pages to a crawl). or
The javascript sits idly by and a server-side script actually "Pushes" any updates to the browser. But I'm not sure if this is possible. I'd imagine there is some kind of AJAX function that still pings, but all it simply asks "any updates?" and the server-script has a simple boolean that says "nope" or "I'm glad you asked." But if this is the case, any data changes would need to call the script directly so that it has the data changes ready and makes the change to that boolean function.
So is that possible/feasible/how it works? I imagine something like:
Someone sends an email/IM/DB update to the server, the server calls the script using the script's URL plus some relevant GET variable, the script notes the change and updates the "updates available" variable, the AJAX gets the response that there are in fact updates, the AJAX runs its normal "update page" functions, which executes the normal update scripts and outputs them to the browser.
I ask because it seems really inefficient that the js is just doing a constant check which requires a) the server to do work every 1.5 seconds, and b) my browser to do work every 1.5 seconds just so that on my end I can say "Oh boy, I got an IM! just like a real IM client!"
Read about Comet
I've actually been working on a small .NET Web App that uses the Ajax with long polling technique described.
Depending on what technology you're using, you could use thread signaling mechanisms to hold your request until an update is retrieved.
With ASP.NET I'm running my server on a single machine, so I store a reference to my Producer object (which contains a thread that processes the data). To initiate the data pull, my service's Subscribe method is called, which creates a Consumer object that's registered with the Producer. If the Consumer is long polling mode, it has a AutoResetEvent which is signaled whenever it receives new data, and whenever the web client makes a request for data, the Consumer first waits on the reset event, and then returns it.
But you're mentioning something about PHP - as far as I know persistence is maintained through serialization, not actually keeping the object in memory, so I don't know how you could reference a Producer object using $_CACHE[] or $_SESSION[]. When I developed in PHP I never really knew anything about multithreading so I didn't play around with it, but I guess you can look into that.
Using infinite loops is going to consume a lot of your processing power - I would exhaust all other options first.
Our code library needs to be notified when the application is exiting. So we have subscribed to the System.Window.Forms.Application.ApplicationExit event. This works nicely for Winforms apps, but does it also work for other types of applications such as console apps, services, and web apps (such as ASP.NET)? The namespace would suggest that it doesn't, and it presumably gets raised when Application.Exit() is called (explicitly or implictly), which may not be correct to call for these other cases.
Is there some other event which would be better in these other cases or which would be more universal (great if it works for Winforms, too)? For example, is there an event for when Environment.Exit() is called (console app)?
I found a mention of an Exited event in System.Diagnostic.Process, but this appears to be for monitoring the exit of another process, and it does not appear to be received by a process about itself (for example, Process.GetCurrentProcess().Exited += Process_Exited; Process.GetCurrentProcess().EnableRaisingEvents = true;). I would think it might only be raised after the process has actually exited, so that wouldn't work.
This is particularly for .NET 2.0 and C#.
We finally found more about this (but by then my machine had been rebuilt and lost the cookies to my unregistered profile here; hopefully, it will let met post this answer).
Further investigation eventually found a few more events which we have found helpful:
System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadExit - Fires when a message loop exits
System.Windows.Forms.Application.ApplicationExit - Fires when all message loops exit
System.AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DomainUnload - Fires when a domain other than the default exits
System.AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ProcessExit - Fires when the default app domain exits
System.AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException - Fires when an uncaught exception occurs, ending the app.
Only one of the DomainUnload or ProcessExit events are possible for a given app domain, depending on whether it is the default (top-level) domain for the process or was created as a subdomain (eg. on a web server). If an application doesn't know which it might be (as in our case), it needs to subscribe to both if it wants to catch the actual unload for itself. Also, it appears that UnhandledException (which as of .NET2.0 is always fatal) may prevent the other two events, so that may be a third case to handle. These three events should work for any .NET application.
There is a caveat that the execution time for ProcessExit is bounded (about 4 seconds?), so it may not be possible to do extensive "final" work in that event handler. It needs to be something which can be done quickly.
The Application events only apply to WinForms applications (we suspect they may not apply in pure WPF applications, however). The naming can be misleading because they are named for their most basic normal usage which has certain assumptions. ThreadExit does not relate to the actual System.Threading.Thread but rather to the message loop (Application.Run())) of a UI thread, and ApplicationExit similarly relates to the collection of application Forms on one or more UI threads. Normally, once the call to Application.Run() returns, called from the entry method of a thread, the entry method quickly concludes and the thread itself then ends. And once all UI threads have exited, a WinForms app is usually all done and exits.
Another event of note is the System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadException event. A Windows message loop can be configured to catch exceptions which occur in handling a message and send this event rather than let them be uncaught (and thus fatal) exceptions. Catching these exceptions allows the message loop (and that UI thread) to continue running (after aborting the current message handler). There can be only one subscriber to this event at any time for a given thread (subscriptions overwrite any previous subscriber), and it must be configured before any Form is created and subscribed before entering the message loop. See the MSDN help for this event and System.Windows.Forms.Applicaton.SetUnhandledExceptionMode() for more info.