I've recently encountered an issue with the multi-threaded nature of the BizTalk Mapper and how it handles external assemblies.
As this quote from MSDN indicates:
Important Any code written in an
external assembly for use in a
scripting functoid needs to be thread
safe. This is required because
multiple instances of a map can use
these .NET instances at run time under
stress conditions.
The Mapper will reuse instances of external assemblies.
In a utility assembly my team was using we had the following code:
public class MapUtil
{
private string _storeReference;
public void SetStoreReference(string ref)
{
_storeReference = ref;
}
public string GetStoreReference()
{
return _storeReference;
}
}
This was causing storereferences from one file to be mapped to different files.
I (appear) to have fixed this by decorating the private field with [ThreadStatic]
[ThreadStatic]
private static string _storeReference;
My question is - does anyone know of any issues with this in the BizTalk Mapper? I'm aware that there are issues using [ThreadStatic] in Asp.Net for examble, due to threads being reused, but can find no documentation on the way the BizTalk mapper deals with threads.
I have used ThreadStatic to set a variable is custom receive pipeline and then access its value within BizTalk Map (through a helper class). have not got any problem so far - tested with ~50 invocations in parallel.
I've still not found a definitive statement along the lines of 'The threading behaviour within the BizTalk Mapper is xyz, so you should take care you use method abc' and I'm not sure that such an answer is going to come from anywhere outside the BizTalk product team.
My one colleague with direct contacts to the product team is on extended Christmas leave (lucky dog) so until he returns I just thought I'd note that with the change made to our code we have not seen a single recurrence of the threading issues on a high volume production server.
Well - that isn't quite true, I managed to miss the static keyword from one property on my helper class and for that property we did still see the threading issues. I'll take that as proof of ThreadStatic being the right way to go for now.
Related
Slogging through MVC+EF and trying to focus on doing things the right way. Right now I'm looking to add a dropdown to a form but I'd like to avoid hitting the database every time the page loads so I'd like to store the data in the app level. I figure creating an application level variable isn't the best approach. I've read about using the cache and static utility functions but surprisingly, nothing has sounded terribly definitive. (Static classes bad for unit testing, caching bad
So I have two scenarios that I'm curious about, I'm not sure if the approach would differ between the two.
1) A basic lookup, let's say the fifty states. Small, defined, will never change. Load at application startup. (Not looking for a hard coded solution but retrieval from the database.)
2) A lookup that will very rarely change and only via an admin-like screen. Let's say, cities/stores where your product is being sold. So data would be stored
in the model but would be relatively static unless someone made changes via the application. So not looking to hit the database every time I need to populate a dropdown/listbox.
Seems like basic stuff but it's basically the same as this topic that was never answered:
Is it good to use a static EF object context in an MVC application for better perf?
Any help is appreciated.
I will address you question in a few parts. First off, is it inherently bad to use static variables or caching patterns in MVC. The answer is simply no. As long as your architecture supports them it is OK. Just put your cache in the right place and design for testability as I will explain later.
The second part is what is the "right" way to have this type of persisted data stored so you don't have to make round trips to the DB to populate common UI items. For this, I don't recommend storing EF objects. I would create POCO objects (View models or similar) that you cache. So in the example of your 50 states you might have something like this:
public class State
{
public string Abbreviation { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then you would do something like this to create your cached list:
List<State> states = Context.StateData.Select(s => new State { Abbreviation = s.Abbreviation, Name = s.Name}).ToList();
Finally, whatever your caching solution is, it should implement an interface so you can mock that caching method for testing.
To do this without running into circular references or using reflection, you will need at least 3 assemblies:
Your MVC application
A class library to define your POCO objects and interfaces
A class library do perform your data access and caching (this can obviously be split into 2 libraries if that makes it easier to maintain and/or test)
That way you could have something like this in your MVC code:
ICache myCache = CacheFactory.CreateCache();
List<State> states = myCache.ListStates();
// populate your view model with states
Where ICache and State are in one library and your actual implementation of ICache is in another.
This is what I do for my standard architecture: splitting POCO objects and interfacees which are data access agnostic into a separate library from data access which is the separate from my MVC app.
Look into using a Dependency Injection tool such as unity, ninject, structuremap, etc. These will allow for the application level control you are looking for by implementing a kernel which holds on to objects in a very similar way to what you seem to be describing.
I would like to use ServiceTracker in order to consume the services published by our company.
Instead of creating new ServiceTracker for each service I want to consume I thought it would be better to create just one with a filter and then get the services from it:
Filter filter = ctx.createFilter("(" + Constants.OBJECTCLASS + "=com.mycomp*)");
tracker = new ServiceTracker(ctx, filter, null);
The problem with this approach is that I then need to iterate over the service references the tracker had found examine their objectClass property and see if I can assign it to the service object which is very cumbersome and error prone due to casting that is required.
Any other ideas how to cunsume multiple services using more elegant way?
I think it is the wrong question :-) From the question I infer that you have a method that takes a service from your company and you want that method called. That is, somewhere in your code you need to be informed about a specific type com.mycomp.X, that is, you're not interested in general services from your company, you have a clear type dependency. In your question you assume that they need to be dispatched centrally which is usually not robust, error prone, and a maintenance hotspot; every time you have a new company service you need to update the dispatch method.
A MUCH better solution seems to be to use Declarative services and use bndtools with annotations. In that model, each place where you need service:
#Component public class SomeMyCompComponent {
...
#Reference
void foo( com.mycomp.X x ) { ... }
...
}
In this model, you do not need to centrally maintain a dispatcher, any class can get the services it needs when they need it. This model also accurately handles multiple dependencies and lots more goodies.
Maybe I do not understand the problem correctly because I inferred the problem from the solution you required. However, I think you try to abuse the Service Tracker for a task it was not intended to do.
Unfortunately, DS is not build into the framework as we should have done :-(
You could subclass ServiceTracker and add methods to provide direct access to the service types in which you are interested. For example, you could store the services in a typesafe heterogeneous container [1]. Then you would be able to call method on your ServiceTracker subclass which take the type of the service you are interested in and they could be easily looked up in the typesafe heterogeneous container.
[1] Effective Java, 2nd Ed., Item 29.
I create class libraries, some which are used by others around the world, and now that I'm starting to use Visual Studio 2010 I'm wondering how good idea it is for me to switch to using code contracts, instead of regular old-style if-statements.
ie. instead of this:
if (fileName == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("fileName");
use this:
Contract.Requires(fileName != null);
The reason I'm asking is that I know that the static checker is not available to me, so I'm a bit nervous about some assumptions that I make, that the compiler cannot verify. This might lead to the class library not compiling for someone that downloads it, when they have the static checker. This, coupled with the fact that I cannot even reproduce the problem, would make it tiresome to fix, and I would gather that it doesn't speak volumes to the quality of my class library if it seemingly doesn't even compile out of the box.
So I have a few questions:
Is the static checker on by default if you have access to it? Or is there a setting I need to switch on in the class library (and since I don't have the static checker, I won't)
Are my fears unwarranted? Is the above scenario a real problem?
Any advice would be welcome.
Edit: Let me clarify what I mean.
Let's say I have the following method in a class:
public void LogToFile(string fileName, string message)
{
Contracts.Requires(fileName != null);
// log to the file here
}
and then I have this code:
public void Log(string message)
{
var targetProvider = IoC.Resolve<IFileLogTargetProvider>();
var fileName = targetProvider.GetTargetFileName();
LogToFile(fileName, message);
}
Now, here, IoC kicks in, resolves some "random" class, that provides me with a filename. Let's say that for this library, there is no possible way that I can get back a class that won't give me a non-null filename, however, due to the nature of the IoC call, the static analysis is unable to verify this, and thus might assume that a possible value could be null.
Hence, the static analysis might conclude that there is a risk of the LogToFile method being called with a null argument, and thus fail to build.
I understand that I can add assumptions to the code, saying that the compiler should take it as given that the fileName I get back from that method will never be null, but if I don't have the static analyzer (VS2010 Professional), the above code would compile for me, and thus I might leave this as a sleeping bug for someone with Ultimate to find. In other words, there would be no compile-time warning that there might be a problem here, so I might release the library as-is.
So is this a real scenario and problem?
When both your LogToFile and Log methods are part of your library, it is possible that your Log method will not compile, once you turn on the static checker. This of course will also happen when you supply code to others that compile your code using the static checker. However, as far as I know, your client's static checker will not validate the internals of the assembly you ship. It will statically check their own code against the public API of your assembly. So as long as you just ship the DLL, you'd be okay.
Of course there is a change of shipping a library that has a very annoying API for users that actually have the static checker enabled, so I think it is advisable to only ship your library with the contract definitions, if you tested the usability of the API both with and without the static checker.
Please be warned about changing the existing if (cond) throw ex calls to Contracts.Requires(cond) calls for public API calls that you have already shipped in a previous release. Note that the Requires method throws a different exception (a RequiresViolationException if I recall correctly) than what you'd normally throw (a ArgumentException). In that situation, use the Contract.Requires overload. This way your API interface stays unchanged.
First, the static checker is really (as I understand it) only available in the ultimate/academic editions - so unless everyone in your organization uses it they may not be warned if they are potentially violating an invariant.
Second, while the static analysis is impressive it cannot always find all paths that may lead to violation of the invariant. However, the good news here is that the Requires contract is retained at runtime - it is processed in an IL-transformation step - so the check exists at both compile time and runtime. In this way it is equivalent (but superior) to a regular if() check.
You can read more about the runtime rewriting that code contract compilation performs here, you can also read the detailed manual here.
EDIT: Based on what I can glean from the manual, I suspect the situation you describe is indeed possible. However, I thought that these would be warninings rather than compilation errors - and you can suppress them using System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage(). Consumers of your code who have the static verifier can also mark specific cases to be ignored - but that could certainly be inconvenient if there are a lot of them. I will try to find some time later today to put together a definitive test of your scenario (I don't have access to the static verifier at the moment).
There's an excellent blog here that is almost exclusively dedicated to code contracts which (if you haven't yet seen) may have some content that interests you.
No; the static analyzer will never prevent compilation from succeeding (unless it crashes!).
The static analyzer will warn you about unproven pre-/post-conditions, but doesn't stop compilation.
When adding a web reference in Visual Studio 2005, I've noticed that every element within the wdsl is duplicated. E.g. for element ItemOne, the interface it generates contains both ItemOne and itemOneField. Both are the same thing, but one is a member and the other is a field. I suspect the field is just a getter for the member.
I can imagine using a field instead of a member for this...but in that case my tendency would have been to make the member private, to avoid clutter. This, despite the fact that the normal motivation for making such a member private is to hide implementation details, which is obviously not applicable in this case.
I realize that changing this now would likely introduce compatibility issues, but I don't see why they did it this way the first time.
Do not point out that such a change would introduce compatibility issues with previous versions of VS. I am interested in the original reasoning behind this.
It's a property with a backing field. What's the problem? Were you expecting it to generate an automatic property? They didn't exist until recently. Why change what works, especially since ASMX (and WSDL.EXE) is pretty much dead technology.
"I am interested in the original reasoning behind this"
as everything past 3.0 framework, the only way to create properties were having a private variable and the property name
private string myItemField;
public string myItem() {
get {
return myItemField;
}
set {
myItemField = value;
}
}
but now, there is no need for it...
public string myItem { get; set; }
the thing is, that this last code is compiled as the original one at the top, even if it's easier to write, it is compiled in the same old way, you will end up with a private variable and a property.
Same thing happens when you add a Web Reference, it needs a variable to hold the "stuff" and then the method...
0 What's the difference between the following?
public class MyClass
{
public bool MyProperty;
}
public class MyClass
{
public bool MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Is it just semantics?
Fields and properties have many differences other than semantic.
Properties can be overridden to provide different implementations in descendants.
Properties can help alleviate versioning problems. I.e. Changing a field to a property in a library requires a recompile of anything depending on that library.
Properties can have different accessibility for the getter and setter.
"Just semantics" always seems like a contradiction in terms to me. Yes, it changes the meaning of the code. No, that's not something I'd use the word "just" about.
The first class has a public field. The second class has a public property, backed by a private field. They're not the same thing:
If you later change the implementation of the property, you maintain binary compatibility. If you change the field to a property, you lose both binary and source compatibility.
Fields aren't seen by data-binding; properties are
Field access can't be breakpointed in managed code (AFAIK)
Exposing a field exposes the implementation of your type - exposing a property just talks about the contract of your type.
See my article about the goodness of properties for slightly more detail on this.
In that case, yes it is mostly semantics. It makes a difference for reflection and so forth.
However, if you want to make a change so that when MyProperty is set you fire an event for example you can easily modify the latter to do that. The former you can't. You can also specify the latter in an interface.
As there is so little difference but several potential advantages to going down the property route, I figure that you should always go down the property route.
The first one is just a public field, the second one is a so-called automatic property. Automatic properties are changed to regular properties with a backing field by the C# compiler.
Public fields and properties are equal in C# syntax, but they are different in IL (read this on a German forum recently, can't give you the source, sorry).
Matthias
The biggest difference is that you can add access modifiers to properties, for example like this
public class MyClass
{
public bool MyProperty { get; protected set; }
}
For access to the CLR fields and properties are different too. So if you have a field and you want to change it to a property later (for example when you want to add code to the setter) the interface will change, you will need to recompile all code accessing that field. With an Autoproperty you don't have this problem.
I am assuming you are not writing code that will be called by 3rd party developers that can’t recompile their code when you change your code. (E.g. that you don’t work for Microsoft writing the .Net framework it’s self, or DevExpress writing a control toolkip). Remember that Microsoft’s .NET framework coding standard is for the people writing the framework and tries to avoid a lot of problems that are not even issues if you are not writing a framework for use of 3rd party developers.
The 2nd case the defined a propriety, the only true advantage of doing is that that data binding does not work with fields. There is however a big political advantage in using proprieties, you get a lot less invalid complaints from other developers that look at your code.
All the other advantages for proprieties (that are well explained in the other answers to your questions) are not of interest to you at present, as any programmer using your code can change the field to a propriety later if need be and just recompile your solution.
However you are not likely to get stacked for using proprieties, so you make as well always use public proprieties rather the fields.