I am developing an application with ZF2.5. I need to make an SSE (Server-Sent Events) module, but I can't manage to do that using a controller, it does not keep my connection alive (of the type: text/event-stream). So I am doing this in a separate php file, but I need authentication on that, and needed to reach Zend's service manager from this file "outside" the Zend environment.
Is it posible? Any suggestions?
Yes, you can do this from within ZF2, but it is not easy. The base of SSE is the connection is kept open. So you need somehow a while(true) or similar in php to keep the process running.
A controller is, when the function is done, terminated and the response is sent. You have to get this logic into a controller. Next, the response handler buffers all output in ZF2 and then sends all data at once. You need to reprogram the ZF2 output buffering flow, so you can send data directly from your controller without the buffering. Because otherwise, you're while(true) loop never sends data, only when you break the loop.
So the short answer: almost anything is possible in ZF2, including your needs. But it is not that straightforward.
The alternative is to load the service manager in your stand-alone script. This is also perfectly possible. Using the application config and merged other configs, you need to build your complete config and provision the SM with it. Then when instantiated, you can fully utilize its system.
Also here, only instantiating the SM can be hard. Easier here is to instantiate the application and grab the SM from it:
$app = Zend\Mvc\Application::init(include 'config/application.config.php');
$sm = $app->getServiceManager();
Note you don't `run()' the app, only bootstrap it!
Related
Here is my need:
I have to displays some information from a web page.
The web browser is actually on the same machine (localhost).
I want the data to be updated dynamically by the server initiative.
Since HTTP protocol is actually a request/response protocol, I know that to get this functionality, the connection between the server and the client (which is local here) should be kept open in some way (Websocket, Server-Sent Events, etc..)
Yes, "realtime" is really a fashion trend nowadays and there are many frameworks out there to do this (meteor, etc...)
And indeed, it seems that Rails supports this functionnality too in addition to using Websockets (Server-Sent Events in Rails 4 and ActionCable in Rails 5)
So achieving this functionnality would not be a big deal, I guess...
Nevertheless what I really want is to trigger an update of the webpage (displayed here locally) from a request made by another client..
This picture will explain that better :
At the beginning, the browser connects to the (local) server (green arrows).
I guess that a thread is executed where all the session data (instance variables) are stored.
In order to use some "realtime" mechanisms, the connection remains open and therefore the thread Y is not terminated. (I guess this is how it works)
A second user is connecting (blue arrows) to the server (could be or not be the same web page) and make some actions (eg. posting a form).
Here the response to that external client does not matter. Just an HTTP OK response is fine. But a confirmation web page could also be returned.
But in anyway the thread X (and/or the connection) has no particular reason to be kept.
Ok, here is my question (BTW thank you for reading me thus far).
How can I echo this new data on the local web browser ?
I see 2 differents ways to do this :
Path A: Before terminating, the thread X passes the data (its instance variables) to the thread Y which has its connection still open. Thus the server is able to update the web browser.
Path B: Before terminating the thread X sends a request (I mean a response since it is the server) directly to the web browser using a particular socket.
Which mechanisms should I use in either method to achieve this functionnality ?
For method A, how can I exchange data between threads ?
For method B, how can I use an already opened socket ?
But which of these two methods (or another one) is actually the best way to do that?
Again thank you for reading me thus far, and sorry for my bad english.
I hope I've been clear enough to expose my need.
You are overthinking this. There is no need to think of such low-level mechanisms as threads and sockets. Most (all?) pub-sub live-update tools (ActionCable, faye, etc.) operate in terms of "channels" and "events".
So, your flow will look like this:
Client A (web browser) makes a request to your server and subscribes to events from channel "client-a-events" (or something).
Client B (the other browser) makes a request to your server with instructions to post an event to channel "client-a-events".
Pub-sub library does its magic.
Client A gets an update and updates the UI accordingly.
Check out this intro guide: Action Cable Overview.
I have got an ASP.NET MVC 4 application, and I want it to send a report e-mail every week. I've read about Quartz.NET, but it's too powerful for this easy task. Now I'm trying to use NCron, but it requires an initialiser in the Main() method (with obligatory parameter args):
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Bootstrap.Init(args, ServiceSetup);
}
}
Is there the way to do this in the Application_Start()? What should I pass as a args param? What other solutions can solve this task?
Author of NCron speaking…
First: I have never myself integrated NCron into a web application, and I am not sure how well it will work. For instance, as Kenneth points out, IIS will shut down your app if it does not receive any traffic, and there might be other hiccups as well.
In order to integrate NCron into a web app, I suggest that you ignore Bootstrap.Init() (designed specifically as an entry point to console apps) and rather work directly with SchedulingService:
using (var service = new SchedulingService())
{
service.Hourly().Run<DataUpdateJob>();
service.Daily().Run<RecycleCacheJob>();
service.Start();
}
Again: I have never done this myself, but please do give it a try, and let me and everyone else know how you fare.
You'll have to look up what ncrone does with those parameters. What this does is pass the command-line arguments of your windows app to the component.
If you're using it on a web app, you don't have command-line args so if it needs arguments, you will have to construct the arguments yourself (either hard-coded or from a config-file or a database or ...)
It's also possible that these are optional, then you can just pass in an empty array (but again, check the docs of ncrone)
Also, keep in mind that when your application shuts down (standard that is after 20 minutes without any activity), your cron runner will not wake it up. If that will be the case you either need to keep the application alive by assuring that at least one request is done every 20 minutes or configure IIS to keep it alive always.
So I have the following scenario (it's a Grails 2.1 app):
I have a Controller that can be accessed via //localhost:8080/myController
This controller in turn executes a call to another URL opening a connection using new URL("https://my.other.url").openConnection()
I want to capture the request so I can log the information
I have a Filter present in my web.xml already which does the job well for controllers mapped in my app. But as soon as a request is fired to an external URL, I don't get anything.
I understand that my filter will only be invoked to URLs inside my app, and that depends on my filter mapping which is fine.
I'm struggling to see how a solution inside the app is actually viable. I'm thinking of using a mixed approach with the DevOps team to capture such outgoing calls from the container and then log them into a separate file.
I guess my questions are:
Is there a way to do it inside the app itself?
Is the approach I'm planning a sensible one?
Cheers!
Any reason why you don't want to use http-builder? There a Grails plugin for it, and it makes remote XML calls much easier than handling the plumbing yourself. At the bottom of the linked page they describe how you can enable request logging via log4j configuration.
I'm planning to build a quite large application (large in term of concurrent user / number of request, not in term of features).
Basically, I'll have a service somewhere, that is waiting for commands execute them, and acknowledge the completion later. This service will use a service bus to communicate, making the execution eventual, before a acknowledge message is issued.
The consumers of this service can be any kind of application (WPF, SL, ...) but my main (and first) client will be an asp.net MVC application + WebApi (.Net 4.5) or MVC only (.Net 4.0) with ajax controller actions.
The web application will be relying on Ajax call to keep a user friendly responsive application.
I'm quite new to such full blown async architecture, and I'm having some questions to avoid future headache :
my web api calls can take some amount of times. How should I design properly the api to support long running operations (some kind of async?). I've read about the new async keyword, but for the sake of knowledge, I'd like to understand what's behind.
My calls to the service will consist is publishing a message and wait for the ack message. If I wrap this in a single method, how should I write this method? Should I "block" until the ack is received (I suppose I shouldn't)? Should I return a Task object and let the consumer decide?
I'm also wondering if SignalR can help me. With signalR, I think I can use a real "fire and forget" command issuing, and route up to the client to ack message.
Am I completely out of subject, and should I take another approach?
In term of implementation details / framework, I think I'll use :
Rabbitmq as messaging system
Masstransit to abstract the messaging system
asp.MVC 4 to build the UI
Webapi to isolate command issuing out of UI controllers, and to allow other kind of client to issue commands
my web api calls can take some amount of times.
How should I design properly the api to support long
running operations (some kind of async?).
I'm not 100% sure where you're going. You ask questions about Async but also mention message queuing, by throwing in RabbitMQ and MassTransit. Message queuing is asynchronous by default.
You also mention executing commands. If you're referring to CQRS, you seperate commands and queries. But what I'm not 100% about is what you're referring to when mentioning "long running processes".
When you query data, the data should already be present. Preferably in a way that is needed for the question at hand.
When you query data, no long-running-process should be started
When you execute commands, a long-running-processes can be started. But that's why you should use message queuing. Specify a task to start the long running process, create a message for it, throw it onto the queue, forget about it altogether. Some other process in the background will pick it up.
When the command is executed, the long-running-process can be started.
When the command is executed, a database can be updated with data
This data can be used by the API if someone requests data
When using this model, it doesn't matter that the long-running-process might take up to 10 minutes to complete. I won't go into detail on actually having a single thread take up to 10 minutes to complete, including locks on database, but I hope you get the point. Your API will be free almost instantly after throwing a message onto the queue. No need for Async there.
My calls to the service will consist is publishing a message and wait for the ack message.
I don't get this. The .NET Framework and your queuing platform take care of this for you. Why would you wait on an ack?
In MassTransit
Bus.Instance.Publish(new YourMessage{Text = "Hi"});
In NServiceBus
Bus.Publish(new YourMessage{Text = "Hi"});
I'm also wondering if SignalR can help me.
I should think so! Because of the asynchronous nature of messaging, the user has to 'wait' for updates. If you can provide this data by 'pushing' updates via SignalR to the user, all the better.
Am I completely out of subject, and should I take another approach?
Perhaps, I'm still not sure where you're going.
Perhaps read up on the following resources.
Resources:
http://www.udidahan.com/2013/04/28/queries-patterns-and-search-food-for-thought/
http://www.udidahan.com/2011/10/02/why-you-should-be-using-cqrs-almost-everywhere%E2%80%A6/
http://www.udidahan.com/2011/04/22/when-to-avoid-cqrs/
http://www.udidahan.com/2012/12/10/service-oriented-api-implementations/
http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/dennis/archive/2012/04/25/what-is-messaging.aspx
http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/dennis/archive/2013/07/30/partitioning-data-through-events.aspx
http://bloggingabout.net/blogs/dennis/archive/2013/01/04/databases-and-coupling.aspx
my web api calls can take some amount of times. How should I design
properly the api to support long running operations (some kind of
async?). I've read about the new async keyword, but for the sake of
knowledge, I'd like to understand what's behind.
Regarding Async, I saw this link being recommended on another question on stackoverflow:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee728598(v=vs.100).aspx
It says that when a request is made to an ASP .NET application, a thread is assigned to process the request from a limited thread pool.
An asynchronous controller action releases the thread back to the thread pool so that it is ready to accept addtitional requests. Within the action the operation which needs to be executed asynchronously is assigned to a callback controller action.
The asynchronous controller action is named using Async as the suffix and the callback action has a Completed suffix.
public void NewsAsync(string city) {}
public ActionResult NewsCompleted(string[] headlines) {}
Regarding when to use Async:
In general, use asynchronous pipelines when the following conditions
are true:
The operations are network-bound or I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound.
Testing shows that the blocking operations are a bottleneck in site performance and that IIS can service more requests by using
asynchronous action methods for these blocking calls.
Parallelism is more important than simplicity of code.
You want to provide a mechanism that lets users cancel a long-running request.
I think developing your service using ASP .NET MVC with Web API and using Async controllers where needed would be a good approach to developing a highly available web service.
Using a message based service framework like ServiceStack looks good too:
http://www.servicestack.net/
Additional resources:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163725.aspx
http://www.codethinked.com/net-40-and-systemthreadingtasks
http://dotnet.dzone.com/news/net-zone-evolution
http://www.aaronstannard.com/post/2011/01/06/asynchonrous-controllers-ASPNET-mvc.aspx
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/TechDays/Techdays-2012-the-Netherlands/2287
http://www.dotnetcurry.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=948 // also shows setup of performance tests
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/mvc-4/using-asynchronous-methods-in-aspnet-mvc-4
http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2013/07/23/async-actions-in-aspnet-mvc-4.aspx
http://hanselminutes.com/327/everything-net-programmers-know-about-asynchronous-programming-is-wrong
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/TheMagicOfUsingAsynchronousMethodsInASPNET45PlusAnImportantGotcha.aspx
In a java web app, I need to call a remote soap service, and I'm trying to use a CXF 2.5.0-generated client. The soap service is provided by a particular ERP vendor, and its wsdl is monstrous, thousands of types, dozens of xsd imports, etc. wsdl2java generates the client ok, thanks to the -autoNameResolution flag. But at runtime it retrieves the remote wsdl twice, once when I create the service object, and again when I create a port object.
MyService_Service myService = new MyService_Service(giantWsdlUrl); // fetches giantWsdl
MyService myPort = myService.getMyServicePort(); // fetches giantWsdl again
Why is that? I can understand retrieving it when creating myService, you want to see that it matches the client I'm currently using, or let a runtime wsdl location dictate the endpoint address, etc. But I don't understand why asking for the port would reload everything it just went out on the wire for. Am I missing something?
Since this is in a web application, and I can't be sure that myPort is threadsafe, then I'd have to create a port for each thread, except that's way too slow, 6 to 8 seconds thanks to the monstrous wsdl. Or add my own pooling, create a bunch in advance, and do check-outs and check-ins. Yuck.
For the record, the JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creation route does not ever fetch the wsdl, and that's good for my situation. It still takes a long time on the first create(), then about a quarter second on subsequent create()s, and even that's less than desirable. And I dunno... it sorta feels like I'm under the hood hotwiring the thing rather than turning the key. :)
Well, you have actually answered the question yourself. Each time you invoke service.getPort() the WSDL is loaded from remote site and parsed. JaxWsProxyFactoryBean goes absolutely the same way, but once the proxy is obtained it is re-used for further invocations. That is why the 1st run is slow (because of "warming up"), but subsequent are fast.
And yes, JaxWsProxyFactoryBean is not thread-safe. Pooling client proxies is an option, but unfortunately will eat a lot of memory, as JAX-WS runtime model is not shared among client proxies; synchronization is perhaps better way to follow.