I am attempting to manage an ajax connection by calling a button onclick method on a separate web part in order to force the partial postback on the consumer.
Web part A (Provider) invokes the method on Web Part B (Consumer)
Web Part A
Type t = myButton.GetType();
object[] p = new object[1];
p[0] = EventArgs.Empty;
MethodInfo m = t.GetMethod("OnClick", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
m.Invoke(myButton, p);
Web Part B
public void btnHidden_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Label1.Text = "Hidden Button: " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
}
When I use reflection, I get the correct information on the HiddenButton. However, I cannot invoke the "OnClick" event. The btnHidden_Click does not execute. It works fine when I invoke from WebPart B to WebPart B, but not from a different webpart.
There doesn't appear to be too much information regarding this behavior. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
Rob
Since Web Parts should be a loosely coupled as possible, I'd use the Web Part connections infrastructure and the Subscriber pattern to handle this.
Communication between connected parts is done through an interface. This interface could include Subscribe and Unsubscribe methods. When the connection is made, the consumer part could subscribe any UpdatePanel controls it needs to be updated when the selected item changes in the provider. Then when the selected item does change, the provider part can walk its subscribers and call the Update method on the UpdatePanel to force an async postback.
I haven't tried this myself but the only drawback I can see is that you may have to queue the calls to Update because any triggering of an async postback cancels any other async postbacks currently in progress.
I hope this helps.
This is so incredably easy to solve using JavaScript. I don't want to say that Web Parts is bad (in as much as I've never worked with them), but I will say that if you are able to program the tiniest bit of JS into the web parts, the code is:
document.getElementById('ElID').onclick();
Good luck!
Related
I'm trying to integrate the schedule component from Syncfusion. The component has a URL adaptor to connect to the controller; GetData() and Batch() for Crud Operations. Batch has a payload indicating what actions to perform. At the end, the Batch method would requery the database and send data identical to GetData() back.
Unfortunately, there is no built-in method to notify clients of anything going wrong - whether there is an exception, server-side validation kicks in or similar.
What I'd like to do is to add a placeholder outside the compentent to receive and display server messages (be it a notification popup, a or whatever.
Since I can't influence the Ajax call itself, I was wondering if I had to get started with SignalR (still in beta for .Net Core 2 as far as I know), or if I may have missed something more obvious? I have read a lot about push notifications etc - but these are not quite what I'm after, it'd be slightly over the top I think.
To summarise, let's say I have
<div id="messages"></div>
<div id="component">HereGoesTheScheduleWhichICantDoMuchWith</div>
Now in the Batch() method, it would be great to call a SendMessage("Sorry,you can't do this") - the text of which would ideally then appear in the messages-div.
How would you go about this?
I have now solved this, using SignalR (currently 1.0.0-alpha2-final) and for a nice view on the Client, PNotify.
Presently, it only works if the client is authenticated, if it needs to work anonymously you'd need to figure out a way to track SignalR's connection id.
On the page with the Syncfusion Schedule component, I connect to SignalR.
let connection = new signalR.HubConnection("/signalr", { transport: signalR.TransportType.ServerSentEvents });
connection.on("Notify",
(title, message) => {
new PNotify({
title: title,
text: message
});
});
connection.start();
The Hub (SignalRHub : Hub) creates a notification group for the user connecting:
public override Task OnConnectedAsync()
{
Groups.AddAsync(Context.ConnectionId, Context.User.Identity.Name);
return base.OnConnectedAsync();
}
The associated controller gets IHubContext<SignalRHub> signalRHub injected.
Now in the Batch-Method for the Syncfusion component, which returns Json and can't itself carry messages or notifications, you can notify the user:
_signalRHub.Clients.Group(User.Identity.Name).InvokeAsync("Notify", "A title", "A message");
In my particular case, I'm sending over an object to control layout, animation and popup duration for PNotify (e.g. longer for an exception to allow copy/paste etc) - as you please. Returning an object could be done using:
_signalRHub.Clients.Group(User.Identity.Name).InvokeAsync("Notify", JsonConvert.SerializeObject(new { title = "Some Title", message = "notification", type = "notice"}););
Obviously, connection.on("Notify"... needs to be changed accordingly.
I hope this is clear enough and might help someone else.
I have a problem in my ASP.NET MVC 4 project.
I use SignalR to create a turn-based game and in a hub event method OnConnected(), I call two separate methods to refresh my aspx with javascript code.
Here is my code :
public override System.Threading.Tasks.Task OnConnected()
{
// Demande les infos du joueur
Send2();
string clientId = GetClientId();
string clientName = utilisateurlambda;
if (Users.IndexOf(clientId) == -1)
{
Users.Add(clientId);
UsersNames.Add(clientName);
}
// Send the current count of users
Send1(Users.Count);
return base.OnConnected();
}
So I want the Send2() method to finish refreshing my aspx page before the method Send1(Users.Count) is called.
Actually, Send1(Users.Count) is called before Send2 finish. Please help me !
Refreshing your aspx page will kill your SignalR connection assuming you are completely reloading the same page you are starting your SignalR connection from.
Secondly, the client will not receive any messages until OnConnected completes. Typically connection initialization logic, such as adding a client to a group, goes inside OnConnected, and you probably don't want to start processing messages until your connection is initialized.
If you don't want to call Send1 until your page is refreshed, you should not call Send1 in OnConnected. Instead, call Send1 in another Hub method that you call from the client after the page refreshes.
We recently developed a site based on SOA but this site ended up having terrible load and performance issues when it went under load. I posted a question related this issue here:
ASP.NET website becomes unresponsive under load
The site is made of an API (WEB API) site which is hosted on a 4-node cluster and a web site which is hosted on another 4-node cluster and makes calls to the API. Both are developed using ASP.NET MVC 5 and all actions/methods are based on async-await method.
After running the site under some monitoring tools such as NewRelic, investigating several dump files and profiling the worker process, it turned out that under a very light load (e.g. 16 concurrent users) we ended up having around 900 threads which utilized 100% of CPU and filled up the IIS thread queue!
Even though we managed to deploy the site to the production environment by introducing heaps of caching and performance amendments many developers in our team believe that we have to remove all async methods and covert both API and the web site to normal Web API and Action methods which simply return an Action result.
I personally am not happy with approach because my gut feeling is that we have not used the async methods properly otherwise it means that Microsoft has introduced a feature that basically is rather destructive and unusable!
Do you know any reference that clears it out that where and how async methods should/can be used? How we should use them to avoid such dramas? e.g. Based on what I read on MSDN I believe the API layer should be async but the web site could be a normal no-async ASP.NET MVC site.
Update:
Here is the async method that makes all the communications with the API.
public static async Task<T> GetApiResponse<T>(object parameters, string action, CancellationToken ctk)
{
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
httpClient.BaseAddress = new Uri(BaseApiAddress);
var formatter = new JsonMediaTypeFormatter();
return
await
httpClient.PostAsJsonAsync(action, parameters, ctk)
.ContinueWith(x => x.Result.Content.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter }).Result, ctk);
}
}
Is there anything silly with this method? Note that when we converted all method to non-async methods we got a heaps better performance.
Here is a sample usage (I've cut the other bits of the code which was related to validation, logging etc. This code is the body of a MVC action method).
In our service wrapper:
public async static Task<IList<DownloadType>> GetSupportedContentTypes()
{
string userAgent = Request.UserAgent;
var parameters = new { Util.AppKey, Util.StoreId, QueryParameters = new { UserAgent = userAgent } };
var taskResponse = await Util.GetApiResponse<ApiResponse<SearchResponse<ProductItem>>>(
parameters,
"api/Content/ContentTypeSummary",
default(CancellationToken));
return task.Data.Groups.Select(x => x.DownloadType()).ToList();
}
And in the Action:
public async Task<ActionResult> DownloadTypes()
{
IList<DownloadType> supportedTypes = await ContentService.GetSupportedContentTypes();
Is there anything silly with this method? Note that when we converted
all method to non-async methods we got a heaps better performance.
I can see at least two things going wrong here:
public static async Task<T> GetApiResponse<T>(object parameters, string action, CancellationToken ctk)
{
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
httpClient.BaseAddress = new Uri(BaseApiAddress);
var formatter = new JsonMediaTypeFormatter();
return
await
httpClient.PostAsJsonAsync(action, parameters, ctk)
.ContinueWith(x => x.Result.Content
.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter }).Result, ctk);
}
}
Firstly, the lambda you're passing to ContinueWith is blocking:
x => x.Result.Content.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter }).Result
This is equivalent to:
x => {
var task = x.Result.Content.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter });
task.Wait();
return task.Result;
};
Thus, you're blocking a pool thread on which the lambda is happened to be executed. This effectively kills the advantage of the naturally asynchronous ReadAsAsync API and reduces the scalability of your web app. Watch out for other places like this in your code.
Secondly, an ASP.NET request is handled by a server thread with a special synchronization context installed on it, AspNetSynchronizationContext. When you use await for continuation, the continuation callback will be posted to the same synchronization context, the compiler-generated code will take care of this. OTOH, when you use ContinueWith, this doesn't happen automatically.
Thus, you need to explicitly provide the correct task scheduler, remove the blocking .Result (this will return a task) and Unwrap the nested task:
return
await
httpClient.PostAsJsonAsync(action, parameters, ctk).ContinueWith(
x => x.Result.Content.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter }),
ctk,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()).Unwrap();
That said, you really don't need such added complexity of ContinueWith here:
var x = await httpClient.PostAsJsonAsync(action, parameters, ctk);
return await x.Content.ReadAsAsync<T>(new[] { formatter });
The following article by Stephen Toub is highly relevant:
"Async Performance: Understanding the Costs of Async and Await".
If I have to call an async method in a sync context, where using await
is not possible, what is the best way of doing it?
You almost never should need to mix await and ContinueWith, you should stick with await. Basically, if you use async, it's got to be async "all the way".
For the server-side ASP.NET MVC / Web API execution environment, it simply means the controller method should be async and return a Task or Task<>, check this. ASP.NET keeps track of pending tasks for a given HTTP request. The request is not getting completed until all tasks have been completed.
If you really need to call an async method from a synchronous method in ASP.NET, you can use AsyncManager like this to register a pending task. For classic ASP.NET, you can use PageAsyncTask.
At worst case, you'd call task.Wait() and block, because otherwise your task might continue outside the boundaries of that particular HTTP request.
For client side UI apps, some different scenarios are possible for calling an async method from synchronous method. For example, you can use ContinueWith(action, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()) and fire an completion event from action (like this).
async and await should not create a large number of threads, particularly not with just 16 users. In fact, it should help you make better use of threads. The purpose of async and await in MVC is to actually give up the thread pool thread when it's busy processing IO bound tasks. This suggests to me that you are doing something silly somewhere, such as spawning threads and then waiting indefinitely.
Still, 900 threads is not really a lot, and if they're using 100% cpu, then they're not waiting.. they're chewing on something. It's this something that you should be looking into. You said you have used tools like NewRelic, well what did they point to as the source of this CPU usage? What methods?
If I were you, I would first prove that merely using async and await are not the cause of your problems. Simply create a simple site that mimics the behavior and then run the same tests on it.
Second, take a copy of your app, and start stripping stuff out and then running tests against it. See if you can track down where the problem is exactly.
There is a lot of stuff to discuss.
First of all, async/await can help you naturally when your application has almost no business logic. I mean the point of async/await is to do not have many threads in sleep mode waiting for something, mostly some IO, e.g. database queries (and fetching). If your application does huge business logic using cpu for 100%, async/await does not help you.
The problem of 900 threads is that they are inefficient - if they run concurrently. The point is that it's better to have such number of "business" threads as you server has cores/processors. The reason is thread context switching, lock contention and so on. There is a lot of systems like LMAX distruptor pattern or Redis which process data in one thread (or one thread per core). It's just better as you do not have to handle locking.
How to reach described approach? Look at disruptor, queue incoming requests and processed them one by one instead of parallel.
Opposite approach, when there is almost no business logic, and many threads just waits for IO is good place where to put async/await into work.
How it mostly works: there is a thread which reads bytes from network - mostly only one. Once some some request arrive, this thread reads the data. There is also limited thread pool of workers which processes requests. The point of async is that once one processing thread is waiting for some thing, mostly io, db, the thread is returned in poll and can be used for another request. Once IO response is ready, some thread from pool is used to finish the processing. This is the way how you can use few threads to server thousand request in a second.
I would suggest that you should draw some picture how your site is working, what each thread does and how concurrently it works. Note that it's necessary to decide whether throughput or latency is important for you.
I am develping an app which load some url, parse them, keep them into sqlite db and the UI will read the saved data and show them in controls. This progress should be done in almost an infinit loop. For having fast response i plan to read the data from db in main thread and have an other thread (background worker) to load the data and insert it into db. Is it logical and possible to run read and write process in dispatchertimer, one timer in main thread and the other inside the background worker? and how? Or does anyone have better idea?
main thread:
DispatcherTimer _Timer1 = new DispatcherTimer();
_Timer1.Interval = _Interval;
_Timer1.Tick += _Timer1_Tick;
void _Timer1_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// read data from db and show in controls
}
secondary thread:
private void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker worker = sender as BackgroundWorker;
DispatcherTimer _Timer2 = new DispatcherTimer();
_Timer2.Interval = _Interval;
_Timer2.Tick += _Timer2_Tick;
}
void _Timer2_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// write data into db
}
}
What you're planning to do wont work.
Both your _Timer1_Tick and _Timer2_Tick will run in the UI thread. If you perform some long-running operations there, it'll hang the UI.
I don't get it, why do you need timers at all? Using timers for anything else but measuring time intervals is rarely a good strategy. You could e.g. run your update process in the infinite loop in background, as soon as it put new data in the DB you call Dispatcher.BeginInvoke (passing any data you want) to notify your UI thread it should update itself with the newly available data.
And by the way, for the tasks like "send HTTP request, wait response, parse, store, repeat", the new async/await feature is a natural choice. For WP7 the functionality is available as "Async CTP" redistributable package for Visual Studio 2010, for WP8 it's already integrated into the framework. There're some compatibility issues between the 2, though.
load some url, parse them, keep them into sqlite db and the UI will read the saved data and show them in controls
Please don't do that. Don't create your own thread management system, just don't. I'm not saying it won't work, but it'll most likely backfire in the most horrendous and inexplicable ways. Like for example using a DisptacherTImer completely exploding in your face since it runs on the UI thread. If you really want to use threading considering ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() or Task.Run() to start fire-and-forget actions.
Your workflow is also just strange, I don't get why you need to write data you already have to a DB, then read it back and only then use it. Won't it make more sense to use the deserialized data to sequentially write it to the DB and present it to the UI? Instead of doing the needless loop of involving Disk I/O considering you already have the data?
Have you considered using Messaging in your app? It's a pretty well known MVVM pattern implemented both in MVVM Light as the Messenger class and in PRISM as the EventAggregator. It seems to me that your system has a Message for "new data available from service" and that message has two subscribers: writing to a DB and updating the UI.
In a previous SO question it was recommended to me to use callback/event firing instead of polling. Can someone explain this in a little more detail, perhaps with references to online tutorials that show how this can be done for Java based web apps.
Thanks.
The definition of a callback from Wikipedia is:
In computer programming, a callback is
executable code that is passed as an
argument to other code. It allows a
lower-level software layer to call a
subroutine (or function) defined in a
higher-level layer.
In it's very basic form a callback could be used like this (pseudocode):
void function Foo()
{
MessageBox.Show("Operation Complete");
}
void function Bar(Method myCallback)
{
//Perform some operation
//When completed execute the callback method
myCallBack().Invoke();
}
static int Main()
{
Bar(Foo); //Pops a message box when Bar is completed
}
Modern languages like Java and c# have a standardized way of doing this and they call it events. An event is simply a special type of property added to a class that contains a list of Delegates / Method Pointers / Callbacks (all three of these things are the same thing. When the event gets "fired" it simply iterates through it's list of callbacks and executes them. These are also referred to as listeners.
Here's an example
public class Button
{
public event Clicked;
void override OnMouseUp()
{
//User has clicked on the button. Let's notify anyone listening to this event.
Clicked(); //Iterates through all the callbacks in it's list and calls Invoke();
}
}
public class MyForm
{
private _Button;
public Constructor()
{
_Button = new Button();
//Different languages provide different ways of registering listeners to events.
// _Button.Clicked += Button_Clicked_Handler;
// _Button.Clicked.AddListener(Button_Clicked_Handler);
}
public void Button_Clicked_Handler()
{
MessageBox.Show("Button Was Clicked");
}
}
In this example the Button class has an event called Clicked. It allows anyone who wants to be notified when is clicked to register a callback method. In this case the "Button_Clicked_Handler" method would be executed by Clicked event.
Eventing/Callback architecture is very handy whenever you need to be notified that something has occurred elsewhere in the program and you have no direct knowledge of when or how this happens.
This greatly simplifies notification. Polling makes it much more difficult because you are responsible for checking every so often whether or not an operation has completed. A simple polling mechanism would be like this:
static void CheckIfDone()
{
while(!Button.IsClicked)
{
//Sleep
}
//Button has been clicked.
}
The problem is that this particular situation would block your existing thread and have to continue checking until Button.IsClicked is true. The nice thing about eventing architecture is that it is asynchronous and let's the Acting Item (button) notify the listener when it is completed instead of the listener having to keep checking,
The difference between polling and callback/event is simple:
Polling: You are asking, continuously or every fixed amount of time, if some condition is meet, for example, if some keyboard key have been pressed.
Callback: You say to some driver, other code or whatever: When something happens (the keyboard have been pressed in our example), call this function, and you pass it what function you want to be called when the event happens. This way, you can "forget" about that event, knowing that it will be handled correctly when it happens.
Callback is when you pass a function/object to be called/notified when something it cares about happens. This is used a lot in UI - A function is passed to a button that is called whenever the button is pressed, for example.
There are two players involved in this scenario. First you have the "observed" which from time to time does things in which other players are interested. These other players are called "observers". The "observed" could be a timer, the "observers" could be tasks, interested in alarm events.
This "pattern" is described in the book "Design Patterns, Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software" by Gamma, Helm, Johnson and Vlissides.
Two examples:
The SAX parser to parse XML walks
trough an XML file and raises events
each time an element is encountered.
A listener can listen to these
elements and do something with it.
Swing and AWT are based on this
pattern. When the user moves the
mouse, clicks or types something on
the keyboard, these actions are
converted into events. The UI
components listen to these
events and react to them.
Being notified via an event is almost always preferable to polling, especially if hardware is involved and that event originates from a driver issuing a CPU interrupt. In that case, you're not using ANY cpu at all while you wait for some piece of hardware to complete a task.