Search Results

Search found 806 results on 33 pages for 'httpcontext'.

Page 13/33 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • How not to abort http response c#

    - by user194076
    I need to run several methods after sending file to a user for a download. What happens is that after I send a file to a user, response is aborted and I can no longer do anything after response.end(). for example, this is my sample code: Response.Clear(); Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment; filename=test.pdf"); Response.ContentType = "application/pdf"; byte[] a = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("test"); Response.BinaryWrite(a); Response.End(); StartNextMethod(); Response.Redirect(URL); So, in this example StartNextMethod and Response.Redirect are not executing. What I tried is I created a separate handler(ashx) with the following code: public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.Clear(); context.Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment; filename=test.pdf"); context.Response.ContentType = "application/pdf"; byte[] a = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes("test"); context.Response.BinaryWrite(a); context.Response.End(); } and call it like this: Download d = new Download(); d.ProcessRequest(HttpContext.Current); StartNextMethod(); Response.Redirect(URL); but the same error happen. I've tryied to replace Response.End with CompleteRequest but it doesn't help. I guess the problem is that I'm using HttpContext.Current but should use a separate response stream. Is that correct? how do I do that in a separate method generically (Assume that I want my handler to accept byte array of data and content type and be downloadable from a separate response. I really do not want to use a separate page for a response. UPDATE I still didn't find a good solution. I'd like to do some actions after user has downloaded a file, but without using a separate page for a response\request thing.

    Read the article

  • How do I find the root path of a website from a dll?

    - by Biff MaGriff
    I have a C# website. It references several compiled dlls. My dlls need to access folders on the website. How do I find the root path of the website from the dlls? I've tried System.Environment.CurrentDirectory - "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE" Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location - C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\Temporary ASP.NET Files...... I was going to use System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath() but System.Web.HttpContext.Current is null. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Session is null when inherit from System.Web.UI.Page

    - by Andreas K.
    I want to extend the System.Web.UI.Page-class with some extra stuff. In the ctor I need the value of a session-variable. The problem is that the Session-object is null... public class ExtendedPage : System.Web.UI.Page { protected foo; public ExtendedPage() { this.foo = (int)HttpContext.Current.Session["foo"]; // NullReferenceException } } If I move the part with the session-object into the Load-Event everything works fine... public class ExtendedPage : System.Web.UI.Page { protected foo; public ExtendedPage() { this.Load += new EventHandler(ExtendedPage_Load); } void ExtendedPage_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.foo = (int)HttpContext.Current.Session["foo"]; } } Why is the Session-object null in the first case??

    Read the article

  • [NHibernate and ASP.NET MVC] How can I implement a robust session-per-request pattern in my project,

    - by Guillaume Gervais
    I'm currently building an ASP.NET MVC project, with NHibernate as its persistance layer. For now, some functionnalities have been implemented, but only use local NHibernate sessions: each method that accessed the database (read or write) needs to instanciate its own NHibernate session, with the "using()" directive. The problem is that I want to leverage NHibernate's Lazy-Loading capabilities to improve the performance of my project. This implies an open NHibernate session per request until the view is rendered. Furthermore, simultaneous request must be supported (multiple Sessions at the same time). How can I achieve that as cleanly as possible? I searched the Web a little bit and learned about the session-per-request pattern. Most of the implementations I saw used some sort of Http* (HttpContext, etc.) object to store the session. Also, using the Application_BeginRequest/Application_EndRequest functions is complicated, since they get fired for each HTTP request (aspx files, css files, js files, etc.), when I only want to instanciate a session once per request. The concern that I have is that I don't want my views or controllers to have access to NHibernate sessions (or, more generally, NHibernate namespaces and code). That means that I do not want to handle sessions at the controller level nor the view one. I have a few options in mind. Which one seems the best ? Use interceptors (like in GRAILS) that get triggered before and after the controller action. These would open and close sessions/transactions. Is it possible in the ASP.NET MVC world? Use the CurrentSessionContext Singleton provided by NHibernate in a Web context. Using this page as an example, I think this is quite promising, but that still requires filters at the controller level. Use the HttpContext.Current.Items to store the request session. This, coupled with a few lines of code in Global.asax.cs, can easily provide me with a session on the request level. However, it means that dependencies will be injected between NHibernate and my views (HttpContext). Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • Error when accessing IIS 7 server variable from ASP.Net MVC

    - by StephSpr
    I have an ASP.Net MVC application which works fine on IIS 6.0 / Windows Server 2003. When installed on IIS 7.5 / Windows Server 2008 (integrated mode), it works but when the application attempts to generate an URL, it runs into the following error: [NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.] System.Web.HttpServerVarsCollection.Get(String name) +10960764 System.Web.Mvc.PathHelpers.GenerateClientUrlInternal(HttpContextBase httpContext, String contentPath) +345 System.Web.Mvc.PathHelpers.GenerateClientUrl(HttpContextBase httpContext, String contentPath) +80 System.Web.Mvc.UrlHelper.GenerateUrl(String routeName, String actionName, String controllerName, RouteValueDictionary routeValues, RouteCollection routeCollection, RequestContext requestContext, Boolean includeImplicitMvcValues) +256 System.Web.Mvc.UrlHelper.Action(String actionName, String controllerName, RouteValueDictionary routeValues) +36 It looks like IIS7 fails to return the server name. There should be a configuration to set, but I couldn't find anything like that. Do you have any idea to fix this issue ? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Why are awkward numbers and letters in my query string??

    - by Nicole
    Hi everyone!! I have a MVC website and when I execute it, the query string (url) that appears is: http://localhost:6970/(S(51aegi45qneolxa0oxwuzh55))/default.aspx what the hell is that strange combination of numbers and letters??? please help!!!!! previously i had been working with the session expires to redirect to one of my views, could be something of that?? i have added the following action filter: public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) { HttpContextBase ctx = filterContext.HttpContext; // check if session is supported if (ctx.Session != null) { // check if a new session id was generated if (ctx.Session.IsNewSession) { // If it says it is a new session, but an existing cookie exists, then it must // have timed out string sessionCookie = ctx.Request.Headers["Cookie"]; if ((null != sessionCookie) && (sessionCookie.IndexOf("ASP.NET_SessionId") >= 0)) { filterContext.HttpContext.Response.Redirect("~/Error/SesionExpirada", true); } } } base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext); } but if I put it in ignore it stills add that rare thing to my urls. Please help!!! thanks

    Read the article

  • How should I store Dynamically Changing Data into Server Cache?

    - by Scott
    Hey all, EDIT: Purpose of this Website: Its called Utopiapimp.com. It is a third party utility for a game called utopia-game.com. The site currently has over 12k users to it an I run the site. The game is fully text based and will always remain that. Users copy and paste full pages of text from the game and paste the copied information into my site. I run a series of regular expressions against the pasted data and break it down. I then insert anywhere from 5 values to over 30 values into the DB based on that one paste. I then take those values and run queries against them to display the information back in a VERY simple and easy to understand way. The game is team based and each team has 25 users to it. So each team is a group and each row is ONE users information. The users can update all 25 rows or just one row at a time. I require storing things into cache because the site is very slow doing over 1,000 queries almost every minute. So here is the deal. Imagine I have an excel spreadsheet with 100 columns and 5000 rows. Each row has two unique identifiers. One for the row it self and one to group together 25 rows a piece. There are about 10 columns in the row that will almost never change and the other 90 columns will always be changing. We can say some will even change in a matter of seconds depending on how fast the row is updated. Rows can also be added and deleted from the group, but not from the database. The rows are taken from about 4 queries from the database to show the most recent and updated data from the database. So every time something in the database is updated, I would also like the row to be updated. If a row or a group has not been updated in 12 or so hours, it will be taken out of Cache. Once the user calls the group again via the DB queries. They will be placed into Cache. The above is what I would like. That is the wish. In Reality, I still have all the rows, but the way I store them in Cache is currently broken. I store each row in a class and the class is stored in the Server Cache via a HUGE list. When I go to update/Delete/Insert items in the list or rows, most the time it works, but sometimes it throws errors because the cache has changed. I want to be able to lock down the cache like the database throws a lock on a row more or less. I have DateTime stamps to remove things after 12 hours, but this almost always breaks because other users are updating the same 25 rows in the group or just the cache has changed. This is an example of how I add items to Cache, this one shows I only pull the 10 or so columns that very rarely change. This example all removes rows not updated after 12 hours: DateTime dt = DateTime.UtcNow; if (HttpContext.Current.Cache["GetRows"] != null) { List<RowIdentifiers> pis = (List<RowIdentifiers>)HttpContext.Current.Cache["GetRows"]; var ch = (from xx in pis where xx.groupID == groupID where xx.rowID== rowID select xx).ToList(); if (ch.Count() == 0) { var ck = GetInGroupNotCached(rowID, groupID, dt); //Pulling the group from the DB for (int i = 0; i < ck.Count(); i++) pis.Add(ck[i]); pis.RemoveAll((x) => x.updateDateTime < dt.AddHours(-12)); HttpContext.Current.Cache["GetRows"] = pis; return ck; } else return ch; } else { var pis = GetInGroupNotCached(rowID, groupID, dt);//Pulling the group from the DB HttpContext.Current.Cache["GetRows"] = pis; return pis; } On the last point, I remove items from the cache, so the cache doesn't actually get huge. To re-post the question, Whats a better way of doing this? Maybe and how to put locks on the cache? Can I get better than this? I just want it to stop breaking when removing or adding rows.

    Read the article

  • Where should we manage session objects in an ASP.NET application?

    - by Kumar
    I am developing a 3-tired ASP.NET C# web application and was wondering where should the sessions be managed. I have a SessionManager class as follows: public sealed class SessionManager { private const string USER = "User"; private SessionManager() { } public static SessionManager Instance { get { return _instance; } } public User User { get { return HttpContext.Current.Session[USER] as User; } set { HttpContext.Current.Session[USER] = value; } } } Now should the session information be managed in the Business Logic Layer or should it be managed in the Presentation Layer?

    Read the article

  • Anyone saw a worst written function than this? [closed]

    - by fvoncina
    string sUrl = "http://www.ipinfodb.com/ip_query.php?ip=" + ip + "&output=xml"; StringBuilder oBuilder = new StringBuilder(); StringWriter oStringWriter = new StringWriter(oBuilder); XmlTextReader oXmlReader = new XmlTextReader(sUrl); XmlTextWriter oXmlWriter = new XmlTextWriter(oStringWriter); while (oXmlReader.Read()) { oXmlWriter.WriteNode(oXmlReader, true); } oXmlReader.Close(); oXmlWriter.Close(); // richTextBox1.Text = oBuilder.ToString(); XmlDocument doc = new XmlDocument(); doc.LoadXml(oBuilder.ToString()); doc.Save(System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath(".") + "data.xml"); DataSet ds = new DataSet(); ds.ReadXml(System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath(".") + "data.xml"); string strcountry = "India"; if (ds.Tables[0].Rows.Count > 0) { strcountry = ds.Tables[0].Rows[0]["CountryName"].ToString(); }

    Read the article

  • Creating STA COM compatible ASP.NET Applications

    - by Rick Strahl
    When building ASP.NET applications that interface with old school COM objects like those created with VB6 or Visual FoxPro (MTDLL), it's extremely important that the threads that are serving requests use Single Threaded Apartment Threading. STA is a COM built-in technology that allows essentially single threaded components to operate reliably in a multi-threaded environment. STA's guarantee that COM objects instantiated on a specific thread stay on that specific thread and any access to a COM object from another thread automatically marshals that thread to the STA thread. The end effect is that you can have multiple threads, but a COM object instance lives on a fixed never changing thread. ASP.NET by default uses MTA (multi-threaded apartment) threads which are truly free spinning threads that pay no heed to COM object marshaling. This is vastly more efficient than STA threading which has a bit of overhead in determining whether it's OK to run code on a given thread or whether some sort of thread/COM marshaling needs to occur. MTA COM components can be very efficient, but STA COM components in a multi-threaded environment always tend to have a fair amount of overhead. It's amazing how much COM Interop I still see today so while it seems really old school to be talking about this topic, it's actually quite apropos for me as I have many customers using legacy COM systems that need to interface with other .NET applications. In this post I'm consolidating some of the hacks I've used to integrate with various ASP.NET technologies when using STA COM Components. STA in ASP.NET Support for STA threading in the ASP.NET framework is fairly limited. Specifically only the original ASP.NET WebForms technology supports STA threading directly via its STA Page Handler implementation or what you might know as ASPCOMPAT mode. For WebForms running STA components is as easy as specifying the ASPCOMPAT attribute in the @Page tag:<%@ Page Language="C#" AspCompat="true" %> which runs the page in STA mode. Removing it runs in MTA mode. Simple. Unfortunately all other ASP.NET technologies built on top of the core ASP.NET engine do not support STA natively. So if you want to use STA COM components in MVC or with class ASMX Web Services, there's no automatic way like the ASPCOMPAT keyword available. So what happens when you run an STA COM component in an MTA application? In low volume environments - nothing much will happen. The COM objects will appear to work just fine as there are no simultaneous thread interactions and the COM component will happily run on a single thread or multiple single threads one at a time. So for testing running components in MTA environments may appear to work just fine. However as load increases and threads get re-used by ASP.NET COM objects will end up getting created on multiple different threads. This can result in crashes or hangs, or data corruption in the STA components which store their state in thread local storage on the STA thread. If threads overlap this global store can easily get corrupted which in turn causes problems. STA ensures that any COM object instance loaded always stays on the same thread it was instantiated on. What about COM+? COM+ is supposed to address the problem of STA in MTA applications by providing an abstraction with it's own thread pool manager for COM objects. It steps in to the COM instantiation pipeline and hands out COM instances from its own internally maintained STA Thread pool. This guarantees that the COM instantiation threads are STA threads if using STA components. COM+ works, but in my experience the technology is very, very slow for STA components. It adds a ton of overhead and reduces COM performance noticably in load tests in IIS. COM+ can make sense in some situations but for Web apps with STA components it falls short. In addition there's also the need to ensure that COM+ is set up and configured on the target machine and the fact that components have to be registered in COM+. COM+ also keeps components up at all times, so if a component needs to be replaced the COM+ package needs to be unloaded (same is true for IIS hosted components but it's more common to manage that). COM+ is an option for well established components, but native STA support tends to provide better performance and more consistent usability, IMHO. STA for non supporting ASP.NET Technologies As mentioned above only WebForms supports STA natively. However, by utilizing the WebForms ASP.NET Page handler internally it's actually possible to trick various other ASP.NET technologies and let them work with STA components. This is ugly but I've used each of these in various applications and I've had minimal problems making them work with FoxPro STA COM components which is about as dififcult as it gets for COM Interop in .NET. In this post I summarize several STA workarounds that enable you to use STA threading with these ASP.NET Technologies: ASMX Web Services ASP.NET MVC WCF Web Services ASP.NET Web API ASMX Web Services I start with classic ASP.NET ASMX Web Services because it's the easiest mechanism that allows for STA modification. It also clearly demonstrates how the WebForms STA Page Handler is the key technology to enable the various other solutions to create STA components. Essentially the way this works is to override the WebForms Page class and hijack it's init functionality for processing requests. Here's what this looks like for Web Services:namespace FoxProAspNet { public class WebServiceStaHandler : System.Web.UI.Page, IHttpAsyncHandler { protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e) { IHttpHandler handler = new WebServiceHandlerFactory().GetHandler( this.Context, this.Context.Request.HttpMethod, this.Context.Request.FilePath, this.Context.Request.PhysicalPath); handler.ProcessRequest(this.Context); this.Context.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); } public IAsyncResult BeginProcessRequest( HttpContext context, AsyncCallback cb, object extraData) { return this.AspCompatBeginProcessRequest(context, cb, extraData); } public void EndProcessRequest(IAsyncResult result) { this.AspCompatEndProcessRequest(result); } } public class AspCompatWebServiceStaHandlerWithSessionState : WebServiceStaHandler, IRequiresSessionState { } } This class overrides the ASP.NET WebForms Page class which has a little known AspCompatBeginProcessRequest() and AspCompatEndProcessRequest() method that is responsible for providing the WebForms ASPCOMPAT functionality. These methods handle routing requests to STA threads. Note there are two classes - one that includes session state and one that does not. If you plan on using ASP.NET Session state use the latter class, otherwise stick to the former. This maps to the EnableSessionState page setting in WebForms. This class simply hooks into this functionality by overriding the BeginProcessRequest and EndProcessRequest methods and always forcing it into the AspCompat methods. The way this works is that BeginProcessRequest() fires first to set up the threads and starts intializing the handler. As part of that process the OnInit() method is fired which is now already running on an STA thread. The code then creates an instance of the actual WebService handler factory and calls its ProcessRequest method to start executing which generates the Web Service result. Immediately after ProcessRequest the request is stopped with Application.CompletRequest() which ensures that the rest of the Page handler logic doesn't fire. This means that even though the fairly heavy Page class is overridden here, it doesn't end up executing any of its internal processing which makes this code fairly efficient. In a nutshell, we're highjacking the Page HttpHandler and forcing it to process the WebService process handler in the context of the AspCompat handler behavior. Hooking up the Handler Because the above is an HttpHandler implementation you need to hook up the custom handler and replace the standard ASMX handler. To do this you need to modify the web.config file (here for IIS 7 and IIS Express): <configuration> <system.webServer> <handlers> <remove name="WebServiceHandlerFactory-Integrated-4.0" /> <add name="Asmx STA Web Service Handler" path="*.asmx" verb="*" type="FoxProAspNet.WebServiceStaHandler" precondition="integrated"/> </handlers> </system.webServer> </configuration> (Note: The name for the WebServiceHandlerFactory-Integrated-4.0 might be slightly different depending on your server version. Check the IIS Handler configuration in the IIS Management Console for the exact name or simply remove the handler from the list there which will propagate to your web.config). For IIS 5 & 6 (Windows XP/2003) or the Visual Studio Web Server use:<configuration> <system.web> <httpHandlers> <remove path="*.asmx" verb="*" /> <add path="*.asmx" verb="*" type="FoxProAspNet.WebServiceStaHandler" /> </httpHandlers> </system.web></configuration> To test, create a new ASMX Web Service and create a method like this: [WebService(Namespace = "http://foxaspnet.org/")] [WebServiceBinding(ConformsTo = WsiProfiles.BasicProfile1_1)] public class FoxWebService : System.Web.Services.WebService { [WebMethod] public string HelloWorld() { return "Hello World. Threading mode is: " + System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.GetApartmentState(); } } Run this before you put in the web.config configuration changes and you should get: Hello World. Threading mode is: MTA Then put the handler mapping into Web.config and you should see: Hello World. Threading mode is: STA And you're on your way to using STA COM components. It's a hack but it works well! I've used this with several high volume Web Service installations with various customers and it's been fast and reliable. ASP.NET MVC ASP.NET MVC has quickly become the most popular ASP.NET technology, replacing WebForms for creating HTML output. MVC is more complex to get started with, but once you understand the basic structure of how requests flow through the MVC pipeline it's easy to use and amazingly flexible in manipulating HTML requests. In addition, MVC has great support for non-HTML output sources like JSON and XML, making it an excellent choice for AJAX requests without any additional tools. Unlike WebForms ASP.NET MVC doesn't support STA threads natively and so some trickery is needed to make it work with STA threads as well. MVC gets its handler implementation through custom route handlers using ASP.NET's built in routing semantics. To work in an STA handler requires working in the Page Handler as part of the Route Handler implementation. As with the Web Service handler the first step is to create a custom HttpHandler that can instantiate an MVC request pipeline properly:public class MvcStaThreadHttpAsyncHandler : Page, IHttpAsyncHandler, IRequiresSessionState { private RequestContext _requestContext; public MvcStaThreadHttpAsyncHandler(RequestContext requestContext) { if (requestContext == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("requestContext"); _requestContext = requestContext; } public IAsyncResult BeginProcessRequest(HttpContext context, AsyncCallback cb, object extraData) { return this.AspCompatBeginProcessRequest(context, cb, extraData); } protected override void OnInit(EventArgs e) { var controllerName = _requestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("controller"); var controllerFactory = ControllerBuilder.Current.GetControllerFactory(); var controller = controllerFactory.CreateController(_requestContext, controllerName); if (controller == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("Could not find controller: " + controllerName); try { controller.Execute(_requestContext); } finally { controllerFactory.ReleaseController(controller); } this.Context.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); } public void EndProcessRequest(IAsyncResult result) { this.AspCompatEndProcessRequest(result); } public override void ProcessRequest(HttpContext httpContext) { throw new NotSupportedException("STAThreadRouteHandler does not support ProcessRequest called (only BeginProcessRequest)"); } } This handler code figures out which controller to load and then executes the controller. MVC internally provides the information needed to route to the appropriate method and pass the right parameters. Like the Web Service handler the logic occurs in the OnInit() and performs all the processing in that part of the request. Next, we need a RouteHandler that can actually pick up this handler. Unlike the Web Service handler where we simply registered the handler, MVC requires a RouteHandler to pick up the handler. RouteHandlers look at the URL's path and based on that decide on what handler to invoke. The route handler is pretty simple - all it does is load our custom handler: public class MvcStaThreadRouteHandler : IRouteHandler { public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext) { if (requestContext == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("requestContext"); return new MvcStaThreadHttpAsyncHandler(requestContext); } } At this point you can instantiate this route handler and force STA requests to MVC by specifying a route. The following sets up the ASP.NET Default Route:Route mvcRoute = new Route("{controller}/{action}/{id}", new RouteValueDictionary( new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }), new MvcStaThreadRouteHandler()); RouteTable.Routes.Add(mvcRoute);   To make this code a little easier to work with and mimic the behavior of the routes.MapRoute() functionality extension method that MVC provides, here is an extension method for MapMvcStaRoute(): public static class RouteCollectionExtensions { public static void MapMvcStaRoute(this RouteCollection routeTable, string name, string url, object defaults = null) { Route mvcRoute = new Route(url, new RouteValueDictionary(defaults), new MvcStaThreadRouteHandler()); RouteTable.Routes.Add(mvcRoute); } } With this the syntax to add  route becomes a little easier and matches the MapRoute() method:RouteTable.Routes.MapMvcStaRoute( name: "Default", url: "{controller}/{action}/{id}", defaults: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } ); The nice thing about this route handler, STA Handler and extension method is that it's fully self contained. You can put all three into a single class file and stick it into your Web app, and then simply call MapMvcStaRoute() and it just works. Easy! To see whether this works create an MVC controller like this: public class ThreadTestController : Controller { public string ThreadingMode() { return Thread.CurrentThread.GetApartmentState().ToString(); } } Try this test both with only the MapRoute() hookup in the RouteConfiguration in which case you should get MTA as the value. Then change the MapRoute() call to MapMvcStaRoute() leaving all the parameters the same and re-run the request. You now should see STA as the result. You're on your way using STA COM components reliably in ASP.NET MVC. WCF Web Services running through IIS WCF Web Services provide a more robust and wider range of services for Web Services. You can use WCF over HTTP, TCP, and Pipes, and WCF services support WS* secure services. There are many features in WCF that go way beyond what ASMX can do. But it's also a bit more complex than ASMX. As a basic rule if you need to serve straight SOAP Services over HTTP I 'd recommend sticking with the simpler ASMX services especially if COM is involved. If you need WS* support or want to serve data over non-HTTP protocols then WCF makes more sense. WCF is not my forte but I found a solution from Scott Seely on his blog that describes the progress and that seems to work well. I'm copying his code below so this STA information is all in one place and quickly explain. Scott's code basically works by creating a custom OperationBehavior which can be specified via an [STAOperation] attribute on every method. Using his attribute you end up with a class (or Interface if you separate the contract and class) that looks like this: [ServiceContract] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] public string HelloWorldMta() { return Thread.CurrentThread.GetApartmentState().ToString(); } // Make sure you use this custom STAOperationBehavior // attribute to force STA operation of service methods [STAOperationBehavior] [OperationContract] public string HelloWorldSta() { return Thread.CurrentThread.GetApartmentState().ToString(); } } Pretty straight forward. The latter method returns STA while the former returns MTA. To make STA work every method needs to be marked up. The implementation consists of the attribute and OperationInvoker implementation. Here are the two classes required to make this work from Scott's post:public class STAOperationBehaviorAttribute : Attribute, IOperationBehavior { public void AddBindingParameters(OperationDescription operationDescription, System.ServiceModel.Channels.BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters) { } public void ApplyClientBehavior(OperationDescription operationDescription, System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.ClientOperation clientOperation) { // If this is applied on the client, well, it just doesn’t make sense. // Don’t throw in case this attribute was applied on the contract // instead of the implementation. } public void ApplyDispatchBehavior(OperationDescription operationDescription, System.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.DispatchOperation dispatchOperation) { // Change the IOperationInvoker for this operation. dispatchOperation.Invoker = new STAOperationInvoker(dispatchOperation.Invoker); } public void Validate(OperationDescription operationDescription) { if (operationDescription.SyncMethod == null) { throw new InvalidOperationException("The STAOperationBehaviorAttribute " + "only works for synchronous method invocations."); } } } public class STAOperationInvoker : IOperationInvoker { IOperationInvoker _innerInvoker; public STAOperationInvoker(IOperationInvoker invoker) { _innerInvoker = invoker; } public object[] AllocateInputs() { return _innerInvoker.AllocateInputs(); } public object Invoke(object instance, object[] inputs, out object[] outputs) { // Create a new, STA thread object[] staOutputs = null; object retval = null; Thread thread = new Thread( delegate() { retval = _innerInvoker.Invoke(instance, inputs, out staOutputs); }); thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA); thread.Start(); thread.Join(); outputs = staOutputs; return retval; } public IAsyncResult InvokeBegin(object instance, object[] inputs, AsyncCallback callback, object state) { // We don’t handle async… throw new NotImplementedException(); } public object InvokeEnd(object instance, out object[] outputs, IAsyncResult result) { // We don’t handle async… throw new NotImplementedException(); } public bool IsSynchronous { get { return true; } } } The key in this setup is the Invoker and the Invoke method which creates a new thread and then fires the request on this new thread. Because this approach creates a new thread for every request it's not super efficient. There's a bunch of overhead involved in creating the thread and throwing it away after each thread, but it'll work for low volume requests and insure each thread runs in STA mode. If better performance is required it would be useful to create a custom thread manager that can pool a number of STA threads and hand off threads as needed rather than creating new threads on every request. If your Web Service needs are simple and you need only to serve standard SOAP 1.x requests, I would recommend sticking with ASMX services. It's easier to set up and work with and for STA component use it'll be significantly better performing since ASP.NET manages the STA thread pool for you rather than firing new threads for each request. One nice thing about Scotts code is though that it works in any WCF environment including self hosting. It has no dependency on ASP.NET or WebForms for that matter. STA - If you must STA components are a  pain in the ass and thankfully there isn't too much stuff out there anymore that requires it. But when you need it and you need to access STA functionality from .NET at least there are a few options available to make it happen. Each of these solutions is a bit hacky, but they work - I've used all of them in production with good results with FoxPro components. I hope compiling all of these in one place here makes it STA consumption a little bit easier. I feel your pain :-) Resources Download STA Handler Code Examples Scott Seely's original STA WCF OperationBehavior Article© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in FoxPro   ASP.NET  .NET  COM   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Frameworks and Raw Throughput Performance

    - by Rick Strahl
    A few days ago I had a curious thought: With all these different technologies that the ASP.NET stack has to offer, what's the most efficient technology overall to return data for a server request? When I started this it was mere curiosity rather than a real practical need or result. Different tools are used for different problems and so performance differences are to be expected. But still I was curious to see how the various technologies performed relative to each just for raw throughput of the request getting to the endpoint and back out to the client with as little processing in the actual endpoint logic as possible (aka Hello World!). I want to clarify that this is merely an informal test for my own curiosity and I'm sharing the results and process here because I thought it was interesting. It's been a long while since I've done any sort of perf testing on ASP.NET, mainly because I've not had extremely heavy load requirements and because overall ASP.NET performs very well even for fairly high loads so that often it's not that critical to test load performance. This post is not meant to make a point  or even come to a conclusion which tech is better, but just to act as a reference to help understand some of the differences in perf and give a starting point to play around with this yourself. I've included the code for this simple project, so you can play with it and maybe add a few additional tests for different things if you like. Source Code on GitHub I looked at this data for these technologies: ASP.NET Web API ASP.NET MVC WebForms ASP.NET WebPages ASMX AJAX Services  (couldn't get AJAX/JSON to run on IIS8 ) WCF Rest Raw ASP.NET HttpHandlers It's quite a mixed bag, of course and the technologies target different types of development. What started out as mere curiosity turned into a bit of a head scratcher as the results were sometimes surprising. What I describe here is more to satisfy my curiosity more than anything and I thought it interesting enough to discuss on the blog :-) First test: Raw Throughput The first thing I did is test raw throughput for the various technologies. This is the least practical test of course since you're unlikely to ever create the equivalent of a 'Hello World' request in a real life application. The idea here is to measure how much time a 'NOP' request takes to return data to the client. So for this request I create the simplest Hello World request that I could come up for each tech. Http Handler The first is the lowest level approach which is an HTTP handler. public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } WebForms Next I added a couple of ASPX pages - one using CodeBehind and one using only a markup page. The CodeBehind page simple does this in CodeBehind without any markup in the ASPX page: public partial class HelloWorld_CodeBehind : System.Web.UI.Page { protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() ); Response.End(); } } while the Markup page only contains some static output via an expression:<%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="false" CodeBehind="HelloWorld_Markup.aspx.cs" Inherits="AspNetFrameworksPerformance.HelloWorld_Markup" %> Hello World. Time is <%= DateTime.Now %> ASP.NET WebPages WebPages is the freestanding Razor implementation of ASP.NET. Here's the simple HelloWorld.cshtml page:Hello World @DateTime.Now WCF REST WCF REST was the token REST implementation for ASP.NET before WebAPI and the inbetween step from ASP.NET AJAX. I'd like to forget that this technology was ever considered for production use, but I'll include it here. Here's an OperationContract class: [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World" + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } } WCF REST can return arbitrary results by returning a Stream object and a content type. The code above turns the string result into a stream and returns that back to the client. ASP.NET AJAX (ASMX Services) I also wanted to test ASP.NET AJAX services because prior to WebAPI this is probably still the most widely used AJAX technology for the ASP.NET stack today. Unfortunately I was completely unable to get this running on my Windows 8 machine. Visual Studio 2012  removed adding of ASP.NET AJAX services, and when I tried to manually add the service and configure the script handler references it simply did not work - I always got a SOAP response for GET and POST operations. No matter what I tried I always ended up getting XML results even when explicitly adding the ScriptHandler. So, I didn't test this (but the code is there - you might be able to test this on a Windows 7 box). ASP.NET MVC Next up is probably the most popular ASP.NET technology at the moment: MVC. Here's the small controller: public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } } ASP.NET WebAPI Next up is WebAPI which looks kind of similar to MVC. Except here I have to use a StringContent result to return the response: public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } } Testing Take a minute to think about each of the technologies… and take a guess which you think is most efficient in raw throughput. The fastest should be pretty obvious, but the others - maybe not so much. The testing I did is pretty informal since it was mainly to satisfy my curiosity - here's how I did this: I used Apache Bench (ab.exe) from a full Apache HTTP installation to run and log the test results of hitting the server. ab.exe is a small executable that lets you hit a URL repeatedly and provides counter information about the number of requests, requests per second etc. ab.exe and the batch file are located in the \LoadTests folder of the project. An ab.exe command line  looks like this: ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld which hits the specified URL 100,000 times with a load factor of 20 concurrent requests. This results in output like this:   It's a great way to get a quick and dirty performance summary. Run it a few times to make sure there's not a large amount of varience. You might also want to do an IISRESET to clear the Web Server. Just make sure you do a short test run to warm up the server first - otherwise your first run is likely to be skewed downwards. ab.exe also allows you to specify headers and provide POST data and many other things if you want to get a little more fancy. Here all tests are GET requests to keep it simple. I ran each test: 100,000 iterations Load factor of 20 concurrent connections IISReset before starting A short warm up run for API and MVC to make sure startup cost is mitigated Here is the batch file I used for the test: IISRESET REM make sure you add REM C:\Program Files (x86)\Apache Software Foundation\Apache2.2\bin REM to your path so ab.exe can be found REM Warm up ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJsonab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson ab.exe -n100 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/handler.ashx > handler.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_CodeBehind.aspx > AspxCodeBehind.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/HelloWorld_Markup.aspx > AspxMarkup.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorld > Wcf.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldCode > Mvc.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorld > WebApi.txt I ran each of these tests 3 times and took the average score for Requests/second, with the machine otherwise idle. I did see a bit of variance when running many tests but the values used here are the medians. Part of this has to do with the fact I ran the tests on my local machine - result would probably more consistent running the load test on a separate machine hitting across the network. I ran these tests locally on my laptop which is a Dell XPS with quad core Sandibridge I7-2720QM @ 2.20ghz and a fast SSD drive on Windows 8. CPU load during tests ran to about 70% max across all 4 cores (IOW, it wasn't overloading the machine). Ideally you can try running these tests on a separate machine hitting the local machine. If I remember correctly IIS 7 and 8 on client OSs don't throttle so the performance here should be Results Ok, let's cut straight to the chase. Below are the results from the tests… It's not surprising that the handler was fastest. But it was a bit surprising to me that the next fastest was WebForms and especially Web Forms with markup over a CodeBehind page. WebPages also fared fairly well. MVC and WebAPI are a little slower and the slowest by far is WCF REST (which again I find surprising). As mentioned at the start the raw throughput tests are not overly practical as they don't test scripting performance for the HTML generation engines or serialization performances of the data engines. All it really does is give you an idea of the raw throughput for the technology from time of request to reaching the endpoint and returning minimal text data back to the client which indicates full round trip performance. But it's still interesting to see that Web Forms performs better in throughput than either MVC, WebAPI or WebPages. It'd be interesting to try this with a few pages that actually have some parsing logic on it, but that's beyond the scope of this throughput test. But what's also amazing about this test is the sheer amount of traffic that a laptop computer is handling. Even the slowest tech managed 5700 requests a second, which is one hell of a lot of requests if you extrapolate that out over a 24 hour period. Remember these are not static pages, but dynamic requests that are being served. Another test - JSON Data Service Results The second test I used a JSON result from several of the technologies. I didn't bother running WebForms and WebPages through this test since that doesn't make a ton of sense to return data from the them (OTOH, returning text from the APIs didn't make a ton of sense either :-) In these tests I have a small Person class that gets serialized and then returned to the client. The Person class looks like this: public class Person { public Person() { Id = 10; Name = "Rick"; Entered = DateTime.Now; } public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime Entered { get; set; } } Here are the updated handler classes that use Person: Handler public class Handler : IHttpHandler { public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { var action = context.Request.QueryString["action"]; if (action == "json") JsonRequest(context); else TextRequest(context); } public void TextRequest(HttpContext context) { context.Response.ContentType = "text/plain"; context.Response.Write("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); } public void JsonRequest(HttpContext context) { var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(new Person(), Formatting.None); context.Response.ContentType = "application/json"; context.Response.Write(json); } public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } } This code adds a little logic to check for a action query string and route the request to an optional JSON result method. To generate JSON, I'm using the same JSON.NET serializer (JsonConvert.SerializeObject) used in Web API to create the JSON response. WCF REST   [ServiceContract(Namespace = "")] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class WcfService { [OperationContract] [WebGet] public Stream HelloWorld() { var data = Encoding.Unicode.GetBytes("Hello World " + DateTime.Now.ToString()); var ms = new MemoryStream(data); // Add your operation implementation here return ms; } [OperationContract] [WebGet(ResponseFormat=WebMessageFormat.Json,BodyStyle=WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest)] public Person HelloWorldJson() { // Add your operation implementation here return new Person(); } } For WCF REST all I have to do is add a method with the Person result type.   ASP.NET MVC public class MvcPerformanceController : Controller { // // GET: /MvcPerformance/ public ActionResult Index() { return View(); } public ActionResult HelloWorldCode() { return new ContentResult() { Content = "Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString() }; } public JsonResult HelloWorldJson() { return Json(new Person(), JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); } } For MVC all I have to do for a JSON response is return a JSON result. ASP.NET internally uses JavaScriptSerializer. ASP.NET WebAPI public class WebApiPerformanceController : ApiController { [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldCode() { return new HttpResponseMessage() { Content = new StringContent("Hello World. Time is: " + DateTime.Now.ToString(), Encoding.UTF8, "text/plain") }; } [HttpGet] public Person HelloWorldJson() { return new Person(); } [HttpGet] public HttpResponseMessage HelloWorldJson2() { var response = new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.OK); response.Content = new ObjectContent<Person>(new Person(), GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.JsonFormatter); return response; } } Testing and Results To run these data requests I used the following ab.exe commands:REM JSON RESPONSES ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/Handler.ashx?action=json > HandlerJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/MvcPerformance/HelloWorldJson > MvcJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson > WebApiJson.txt ab.exe -n100000 -c20 http://localhost/AspNetPerf/WcfService.svc/HelloWorldJson > WcfJson.txt The results from this test run are a bit interesting in that the WebAPI test improved performance significantly over returning plain string content. Here are the results:   The performance for each technology drops a little bit except for WebAPI which is up quite a bit! From this test it appears that WebAPI is actually significantly better performing returning a JSON response, rather than a plain string response. Snag with Apache Benchmark and 'Length Failures' I ran into a little snag with Apache Benchmark, which was reporting failures for my Web API requests when serializing. As the graph shows performance improved significantly from with JSON results from 5580 to 6530 or so which is a 15% improvement (while all others slowed down by 3-8%). However, I was skeptical at first because the WebAPI test reports showed a bunch of errors on about 10% of the requests. Check out this report: Notice the Failed Request count. What the hey? Is WebAPI failing on roughly 10% of requests when sending JSON? Turns out: No it's not! But it took some sleuthing to figure out why it reports these failures. At first I thought that Web API was failing, and so to make sure I re-ran the test with Fiddler attached and runiisning the ab.exe test by using the -X switch: ab.exe -n100 -c10 -X localhost:8888 http://localhost/aspnetperf/api/HelloWorldJson which showed that indeed all requests where returning proper HTTP 200 results with full content. However ab.exe was reporting the errors. After some closer inspection it turned out that the dates varying in size altered the response length in dynamic output. For example: these two results: {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.841926-10:00"} {"Id":10,"Name":"Rick","Entered":"2012-09-04T10:57:24.8519262-10:00"} are different in length for the number which results in 68 and 69 bytes respectively. The same URL produces different result lengths which is what ab.exe reports. I didn't notice at first bit the same is happening when running the ASHX handler with JSON.NET result since it uses the same serializer that varies the milliseconds. Moral: You can typically ignore Length failures in Apache Benchmark and when in doubt check the actual output with Fiddler. Note that the other failure values are accurate though. Another interesting Side Note: Perf drops over Time As I was running these tests repeatedly I was finding that performance steadily dropped from a startup peak to a 10-15% lower stable level. IOW, with Web API I'd start out with around 6500 req/sec and in subsequent runs it keeps dropping until it would stabalize somewhere around 5900 req/sec occasionally jumping lower. For these tests this is why I did the IIS RESET and warm up for individual tests. This is a little puzzling. Looking at Process Monitor while the test are running memory very quickly levels out as do handles and threads, on the first test run. Subsequent runs everything stays stable, but the performance starts going downwards. This applies to all the technologies - Handlers, Web Forms, MVC, Web API - curious to see if others test this and see similar results. Doing an IISRESET then resets everything and performance starts off at peak again… Summary As I stated at the outset, these were informal to satiate my curiosity not to prove that any technology is better or even faster than another. While there clearly are differences in performance the differences (other than WCF REST which was by far the slowest and the raw handler which was by far the highest) are relatively minor, so there is no need to feel that any one technology is a runaway standout in raw performance. Choosing a technology is about more than pure performance but also about the adequateness for the job and the easy of implementation. The strengths of each technology will make for any minor performance difference we see in these tests. However, to me it's important to get an occasional reality check and compare where new technologies are heading. Often times old stuff that's been optimized and designed for a time of less horse power can utterly blow the doors off newer tech and simple checks like this let you compare. Luckily we're seeing that much of the new stuff performs well even in V1.0 which is great. To me it was very interesting to see Web API perform relatively badly with plain string content, which originally led me to think that Web API might not be properly optimized just yet. For those that caught my Tweets late last week regarding WebAPI's slow responses was with String content which is in fact considerably slower. Luckily where it counts with serialized JSON and XML WebAPI actually performs better. But I do wonder what would make generic string content slower than serialized code? This stresses another point: Don't take a single test as the final gospel and don't extrapolate out from a single set of tests. Certainly Twitter can make you feel like a fool when you post something immediate that hasn't been fleshed out a little more <blush>. Egg on my face. As a result I ended up screwing around with this for a few hours today to compare different scenarios. Well worth the time… I hope you found this useful, if not for the results, maybe for the process of quickly testing a few requests for performance and charting out a comparison. Now onwards with more serious stuff… Resources Source Code on GitHub Apache HTTP Server Project (ab.exe is part of the binary distribution)© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in ASP.NET  Web Api   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Looking into ASP.Net MVC 4.0 Mobile Development - part 2

    - by nikolaosk
    In this post I will be continuing my discussion on ASP.Net MVC 4.0 mobile development. You can have a look at my first post on the subject here . Make sure you read it and understand it well before you move one reading the remaining of this post. I will not be writing any code in this post. I will try to explain a few concepts related to the MVC 4.0 mobile functionality. In this post I will be looking into the Browser Overriding feature in ASP.Net MVC 4.0. By that I mean that we override the user agent for a given user session. This is very useful feature for people who visit a site through a device and they experience the mobile version of the site, but what they really want is the option to be able to switch to the desktop view. "Why they might want to do that?", you might wonder.Well first of all the users of our ASP.Net MVC 4.0 application will appreciate that they have the option to switch views while some others will think that they will enjoy more the contents of our website with the "desktop view" since the mobile device they view our site has a quite large display.  Obviously this is only one site. These are just different views that are rendered.To put it simply, browser overriding lets our application treat requests as if they were coming from a different browser rather than the one they are actually from. In order to do that programmatically we must have a look at the System.Web.WebPages namespace and the classes in it. Most specifically the class BrowserHelpers. Have a look at the picture below   In this class we see some extension methods for HttpContext class.These methods are called extensions-helpers methods and we use them to switch to one browser from another thus overriding the current/actual browser. These APIs have effect on layout,views and partial views and will not affect any other ASP.Net Request.Browser related functionality.The overridden browser is stored in a cookie. Let me explain what some of these methods do. SetOverriddenBrowser() -  let us set the user agent string to specific value GetOverriddenBrowser() -  let us get the overridden value ClearOverriddenBrowser() -  let us remove any overridden user agent for the current request   To recap, in our ASP.Net MVC 4.0 applications when our application is viewed in our mobile devices, we can have a link like "Desktop View" for all those who desperately want to see the site with in full desktop-browser version.We then can specify a browser type override. My controller class (snippet of code) that is responsible for handling the switching could be something like that. public class SwitchViewController : Controller{ public RedirectResult SwitchView(bool mobile, string returnUrl){if (Request.Browser.IsMobileDevice == mobile)HttpContext.ClearOverriddenBrowser();elseHttpContext.SetOverriddenBrowser(mobile ? BrowserOverride.Mobile : BrowserOverride.Desktop);return Redirect(returnUrl);}} Hope it helps!!!!

    Read the article

  • Using the ASP.NET Cache to cache data in a Model or Business Object layer, without a dependency on System.Web in the layer - Part One.

    - by Rhames
    ASP.NET applications can make use of the System.Web.Caching.Cache object to cache data and prevent repeated expensive calls to a database or other store. However, ideally an application should make use of caching at the point where data is retrieved from the database, which typically is inside a Business Objects or Model layer. One of the key features of using a UI pattern such as Model-View-Presenter (MVP) or Model-View-Controller (MVC) is that the Model and Presenter (or Controller) layers are developed without any knowledge of the UI layer. Introducing a dependency on System.Web into the Model layer would break this independence of the Model from the View. This article gives a solution to this problem, using dependency injection to inject the caching implementation into the Model layer at runtime. This allows caching to be used within the Model layer, without any knowledge of the actual caching mechanism that will be used. Create a sample application to use the caching solution Create a test SQL Server database This solution uses a SQL Server database with the same Sales data used in my previous post on calculating running totals. The advantage of using this data is that it gives nice slow queries that will exaggerate the effect of using caching! To create the data, first create a new SQL database called CacheSample. Next run the following script to create the Sale table and populate it: USE CacheSample GO   CREATE TABLE Sale(DayCount smallint, Sales money) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX ndx_DayCount ON Sale(DayCount) go INSERT Sale VALUES (1,120) INSERT Sale VALUES (2,60) INSERT Sale VALUES (3,125) INSERT Sale VALUES (4,40)   DECLARE @DayCount smallint, @Sales money SET @DayCount = 5 SET @Sales = 10   WHILE @DayCount < 5000  BEGIN  INSERT Sale VALUES (@DayCount,@Sales)  SET @DayCount = @DayCount + 1  SET @Sales = @Sales + 15  END Next create a stored procedure to calculate the running total, and return a specified number of rows from the Sale table, using the following script: USE [CacheSample] GO   SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO   SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO   -- ============================================= -- Author:        Robin -- Create date: -- Description:   -- ============================================= CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[spGetRunningTotals]       -- Add the parameters for the stored procedure here       @HighestDayCount smallint = null AS BEGIN       -- SET NOCOUNT ON added to prevent extra result sets from       -- interfering with SELECT statements.       SET NOCOUNT ON;         IF @HighestDayCount IS NULL             SELECT @HighestDayCount = MAX(DayCount) FROM dbo.Sale                   DECLARE @SaleTbl TABLE (DayCount smallint, Sales money, RunningTotal money)         DECLARE @DayCount smallint,                   @Sales money,                   @RunningTotal money         SET @RunningTotal = 0       SET @DayCount = 0         DECLARE rt_cursor CURSOR       FOR       SELECT DayCount, Sales       FROM Sale       ORDER BY DayCount         OPEN rt_cursor         FETCH NEXT FROM rt_cursor INTO @DayCount,@Sales         WHILE @@FETCH_STATUS = 0 AND @DayCount <= @HighestDayCount        BEGIN        SET @RunningTotal = @RunningTotal + @Sales        INSERT @SaleTbl VALUES (@DayCount,@Sales,@RunningTotal)        FETCH NEXT FROM rt_cursor INTO @DayCount,@Sales        END         CLOSE rt_cursor       DEALLOCATE rt_cursor         SELECT DayCount, Sales, RunningTotal       FROM @SaleTbl   END   GO   Create the Sample ASP.NET application In Visual Studio create a new solution and add a class library project called CacheSample.BusinessObjects and an ASP.NET web application called CacheSample.UI. The CacheSample.BusinessObjects project will contain a single class to represent a Sale data item, with all the code to retrieve the sales from the database included in it for simplicity (normally I would at least have a separate Repository or other object that is responsible for retrieving data, and probably a data access layer as well, but for this sample I want to keep it simple). The C# code for the Sale class is shown below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Data; using System.Data.SqlClient;   namespace CacheSample.BusinessObjects {     public class Sale     {         public Int16 DayCount { get; set; }         public decimal Sales { get; set; }         public decimal RunningTotal { get; set; }           public static IEnumerable<Sale> GetSales(int? highestDayCount)         {             List<Sale> sales = new List<Sale>();               SqlParameter highestDayCountParameter = new SqlParameter("@HighestDayCount", SqlDbType.SmallInt);             if (highestDayCount.HasValue)                 highestDayCountParameter.Value = highestDayCount;             else                 highestDayCountParameter.Value = DBNull.Value;               string connectionStr = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager .ConnectionStrings["CacheSample"].ConnectionString;               using(SqlConnection sqlConn = new SqlConnection(connectionStr))             using (SqlCommand sqlCmd = sqlConn.CreateCommand())             {                 sqlCmd.CommandText = "spGetRunningTotals";                 sqlCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;                 sqlCmd.Parameters.Add(highestDayCountParameter);                   sqlConn.Open();                   using (SqlDataReader dr = sqlCmd.ExecuteReader())                 {                     while (dr.Read())                     {                         Sale newSale = new Sale();                         newSale.DayCount = dr.GetInt16(0);                         newSale.Sales = dr.GetDecimal(1);                         newSale.RunningTotal = dr.GetDecimal(2);                           sales.Add(newSale);                     }                 }             }               return sales;         }     } }   The static GetSale() method makes a call to the spGetRunningTotals stored procedure and then reads each row from the returned SqlDataReader into an instance of the Sale class, it then returns a List of the Sale objects, as IEnnumerable<Sale>. A reference to System.Configuration needs to be added to the CacheSample.BusinessObjects project so that the connection string can be read from the web.config file. In the CacheSample.UI ASP.NET project, create a single web page called ShowSales.aspx, and make this the default start up page. This page will contain a single button to call the GetSales() method and a label to display the results. The html mark up and the C# code behind are shown below: ShowSales.aspx <%@ Page Language="C#" AutoEventWireup="true" CodeBehind="ShowSales.aspx.cs" Inherits="CacheSample.UI.ShowSales" %>   <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">   <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head runat="server">     <title>Cache Sample - Show All Sales</title> </head> <body>     <form id="form1" runat="server">     <div>         <asp:Button ID="btnTest1" runat="server" onclick="btnTest1_Click"             Text="Get All Sales" />         &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;         <asp:Label ID="lblResults" runat="server"></asp:Label>         </div>     </form> </body> </html>   ShowSales.aspx.cs using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; using System.Web.UI; using System.Web.UI.WebControls;   using CacheSample.BusinessObjects;   namespace CacheSample.UI {     public partial class ShowSales : System.Web.UI.Page     {         protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)         {         }           protected void btnTest1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)         {             System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch stopWatch = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();             stopWatch.Start();               var sales = Sale.GetSales(null);               var lastSales = sales.Last();               stopWatch.Stop();               lblResults.Text = string.Format( "Count of Sales: {0}, Last DayCount: {1}, Total Sales: {2}. Query took {3} ms", sales.Count(), lastSales.DayCount, lastSales.RunningTotal, stopWatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);         }       } }   Finally we need to add a connection string to the CacheSample SQL Server database, called CacheSample, to the web.config file: <?xmlversion="1.0"?>   <configuration>    <connectionStrings>     <addname="CacheSample"          connectionString="data source=.\SQLEXPRESS;Integrated Security=SSPI;Initial Catalog=CacheSample"          providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />  </connectionStrings>    <system.web>     <compilationdebug="true"targetFramework="4.0" />  </system.web>   </configuration>   Run the application and click the button a few times to see how long each call to the database takes. On my system, each query takes about 450ms. Next I shall look at a solution to use the ASP.NET caching to cache the data returned by the query, so that subsequent requests to the GetSales() method are much faster. Adding Data Caching Support I am going to create my caching support in a separate project called CacheSample.Caching, so the next step is to add a class library to the solution. We shall be using the application configuration to define the implementation of our caching system, so we need a reference to System.Configuration adding to the project. ICacheProvider<T> Interface The first step in adding caching to our application is to define an interface, called ICacheProvider, in the CacheSample.Caching project, with methods to retrieve any data from the cache or to retrieve the data from the data source if it is not present in the cache. Dependency Injection will then be used to inject an implementation of this interface at runtime, allowing the users of the interface (i.e. the CacheSample.BusinessObjects project) to be completely unaware of how the caching is actually implemented. As data of any type maybe retrieved from the data source, it makes sense to use generics in the interface, with a generic type parameter defining the data type associated with a particular instance of the cache interface implementation. The C# code for the ICacheProvider interface is shown below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic;   namespace CacheSample.Caching {     public interface ICacheProvider     {     }       public interface ICacheProvider<T> : ICacheProvider     {         T Fetch(string key, Func<T> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry);           IEnumerable<T> Fetch(string key, Func<IEnumerable<T>> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry);     } }   The empty non-generic interface will be used as a type in a Dictionary generic collection later to store instances of the ICacheProvider<T> implementation for reuse, I prefer to use a base interface when doing this, as I think the alternative of using object makes for less clear code. The ICacheProvider<T> interface defines two overloaded Fetch methods, the difference between these is that one will return a single instance of the type T and the other will return an IEnumerable<T>, providing support for easy caching of collections of data items. Both methods will take a key parameter, which will uniquely identify the cached data, a delegate of type Func<T> or Func<IEnumerable<T>> which will provide the code to retrieve the data from the store if it is not present in the cache, and absolute or relative expiry policies to define when a cached item should expire. Note that at present there is no support for cache dependencies, but I shall be showing a method of adding this in part two of this article. CacheProviderFactory Class We need a mechanism of creating instances of our ICacheProvider<T> interface, using Dependency Injection to get the implementation of the interface. To do this we shall create a CacheProviderFactory static class in the CacheSample.Caching project. This factory will provide a generic static method called GetCacheProvider<T>(), which shall return instances of ICacheProvider<T>. We can then call this factory method with the relevant data type (for example the Sale class in the CacheSample.BusinessObject project) to get a instance of ICacheProvider for that type (e.g. call CacheProviderFactory.GetCacheProvider<Sale>() to get the ICacheProvider<Sale> implementation). The C# code for the CacheProviderFactory is shown below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic;   using CacheSample.Caching.Configuration;   namespace CacheSample.Caching {     public static class CacheProviderFactory     {         private static Dictionary<Type, ICacheProvider> cacheProviders = new Dictionary<Type, ICacheProvider>();         private static object syncRoot = new object();           ///<summary>         /// Factory method to create or retrieve an implementation of the  /// ICacheProvider interface for type <typeparamref name="T"/>.         ///</summary>         ///<typeparam name="T">  /// The type that this cache provider instance will work with  ///</typeparam>         ///<returns>An instance of the implementation of ICacheProvider for type  ///<typeparamref name="T"/>, as specified by the application  /// configuration</returns>         public static ICacheProvider<T> GetCacheProvider<T>()         {             ICacheProvider<T> cacheProvider = null;             // Get the Type reference for the type parameter T             Type typeOfT = typeof(T);               // Lock the access to the cacheProviders dictionary             // so multiple threads can work with it             lock (syncRoot)             {                 // First check if an instance of the ICacheProvider implementation  // already exists in the cacheProviders dictionary for the type T                 if (cacheProviders.ContainsKey(typeOfT))                     cacheProvider = (ICacheProvider<T>)cacheProviders[typeOfT];                 else                 {                     // There is not already an instance of the ICacheProvider in       // cacheProviders for the type T                     // so we need to create one                       // Get the Type reference for the application's implementation of       // ICacheProvider from the configuration                     Type cacheProviderType = Type.GetType(CacheProviderConfigurationSection.Current. CacheProviderType);                     if (cacheProviderType != null)                     {                         // Now get a Type reference for the Cache Provider with the                         // type T generic parameter                         Type typeOfCacheProviderTypeForT = cacheProviderType.MakeGenericType(new Type[] { typeOfT });                         if (typeOfCacheProviderTypeForT != null)                         {                             // Create the instance of the Cache Provider and add it to // the cacheProviders dictionary for future use                             cacheProvider = (ICacheProvider<T>)Activator. CreateInstance(typeOfCacheProviderTypeForT);                             cacheProviders.Add(typeOfT, cacheProvider);                         }                     }                 }             }               return cacheProvider;                 }     } }   As this code uses Activator.CreateInstance() to create instances of the ICacheProvider<T> implementation, which is a slow process, the factory class maintains a Dictionary of the previously created instances so that a cache provider needs to be created only once for each type. The type of the implementation of ICacheProvider<T> is read from a custom configuration section in the application configuration file, via the CacheProviderConfigurationSection class, which is described below. CacheProviderConfigurationSection Class The implementation of ICacheProvider<T> will be specified in a custom configuration section in the application’s configuration. To handle this create a folder in the CacheSample.Caching project called Configuration, and add a class called CacheProviderConfigurationSection to this folder. This class will extend the System.Configuration.ConfigurationSection class, and will contain a single string property called CacheProviderType. The C# code for this class is shown below: using System; using System.Configuration;   namespace CacheSample.Caching.Configuration {     internal class CacheProviderConfigurationSection : ConfigurationSection     {         public static CacheProviderConfigurationSection Current         {             get             {                 return (CacheProviderConfigurationSection) ConfigurationManager.GetSection("cacheProvider");             }         }           [ConfigurationProperty("type", IsRequired=true)]         public string CacheProviderType         {             get             {                 return (string)this["type"];             }         }     } }   Adding Data Caching to the Sales Class We now have enough code in place to add caching to the GetSales() method in the CacheSample.BusinessObjects.Sale class, even though we do not yet have an implementation of the ICacheProvider<T> interface. We need to add a reference to the CacheSample.Caching project to CacheSample.BusinessObjects so that we can use the ICacheProvider<T> interface within the GetSales() method. Once the reference is added, we can first create a unique string key based on the method name and the parameter value, so that the same cache key is used for repeated calls to the method with the same parameter values. Then we get an instance of the cache provider for the Sales type, using the CacheProviderFactory, and pass the existing code to retrieve the data from the database as the retrievalMethod delegate in a call to the Cache Provider Fetch() method. The C# code for the modified GetSales() method is shown below: public static IEnumerable<Sale> GetSales(int? highestDayCount) {     string cacheKey = string.Format("CacheSample.BusinessObjects.GetSalesWithCache({0})", highestDayCount);       return CacheSample.Caching.CacheProviderFactory. GetCacheProvider<Sale>().Fetch(cacheKey,         delegate()         {             List<Sale> sales = new List<Sale>();               SqlParameter highestDayCountParameter = new SqlParameter("@HighestDayCount", SqlDbType.SmallInt);             if (highestDayCount.HasValue)                 highestDayCountParameter.Value = highestDayCount;             else                 highestDayCountParameter.Value = DBNull.Value;               string connectionStr = System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager. ConnectionStrings["CacheSample"].ConnectionString;               using (SqlConnection sqlConn = new SqlConnection(connectionStr))             using (SqlCommand sqlCmd = sqlConn.CreateCommand())             {                 sqlCmd.CommandText = "spGetRunningTotals";                 sqlCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;                 sqlCmd.Parameters.Add(highestDayCountParameter);                   sqlConn.Open();                   using (SqlDataReader dr = sqlCmd.ExecuteReader())                 {                     while (dr.Read())                     {                         Sale newSale = new Sale();                         newSale.DayCount = dr.GetInt16(0);                         newSale.Sales = dr.GetDecimal(1);                         newSale.RunningTotal = dr.GetDecimal(2);                           sales.Add(newSale);                     }                 }             }               return sales;         },         null,         new TimeSpan(0, 10, 0)); }     This example passes the code to retrieve the Sales data from the database to the Cache Provider as an anonymous method, however it could also be written as a lambda. The main advantage of using an anonymous function (method or lambda) is that the code inside the anonymous function can access the parameters passed to the GetSales() method. Finally the absolute expiry is set to null, and the relative expiry set to 10 minutes, to indicate that the cache entry should be removed 10 minutes after the last request for the data. As the ICacheProvider<T> has a Fetch() method that returns IEnumerable<T>, we can simply return the results of the Fetch() method to the caller of the GetSales() method. This should be all that is needed for the GetSales() method to now retrieve data from a cache after the first time the data has be retrieved from the database. Implementing a ASP.NET Cache Provider The final step is to actually implement the ICacheProvider<T> interface, and add the implementation details to the web.config file for the dependency injection. The cache provider implementation needs to have access to System.Web. Therefore it could be placed in the CacheSample.UI project, or in its own project that has a reference to System.Web. Implementing the Cache Provider in a separate project is my favoured approach. Create a new project inside the solution called CacheSample.CacheProvider, and add references to System.Web and CacheSample.Caching to this project. Add a class to the project called AspNetCacheProvider. Make the class a generic class by adding the generic parameter <T> and indicate that the class implements ICacheProvider<T>. The C# code for the AspNetCacheProvider class is shown below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; using System.Web.Caching;   using CacheSample.Caching;   namespace CacheSample.CacheProvider {     public class AspNetCacheProvider<T> : ICacheProvider<T>     {         #region ICacheProvider<T> Members           public T Fetch(string key, Func<T> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry)         {             return FetchAndCache<T>(key, retrieveData, absoluteExpiry, relativeExpiry);         }           public IEnumerable<T> Fetch(string key, Func<IEnumerable<T>> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry)         {             return FetchAndCache<IEnumerable<T>>(key, retrieveData, absoluteExpiry, relativeExpiry);         }           #endregion           #region Helper Methods           private U FetchAndCache<U>(string key, Func<U> retrieveData, DateTime? absoluteExpiry, TimeSpan? relativeExpiry)         {             U value;             if (!TryGetValue<U>(key, out value))             {                 value = retrieveData();                 if (!absoluteExpiry.HasValue)                     absoluteExpiry = Cache.NoAbsoluteExpiration;                   if (!relativeExpiry.HasValue)                     relativeExpiry = Cache.NoSlidingExpiration;                   HttpContext.Current.Cache.Insert(key, value, null, absoluteExpiry.Value, relativeExpiry.Value);             }             return value;         }           private bool TryGetValue<U>(string key, out U value)         {             object cachedValue = HttpContext.Current.Cache.Get(key);             if (cachedValue == null)             {                 value = default(U);                 return false;             }             else             {                 try                 {                     value = (U)cachedValue;                     return true;                 }                 catch                 {                     value = default(U);                     return false;                 }             }         }           #endregion       } }   The two interface Fetch() methods call a private method called FetchAndCache(). This method first checks for a element in the HttpContext.Current.Cache with the specified cache key, and if so tries to cast this to the specified type (either T or IEnumerable<T>). If the cached element is found, the FetchAndCache() method simply returns it. If it is not found in the cache, the method calls the retrievalMethod delegate to get the data from the data source, and then adds this to the HttpContext.Current.Cache. The final step is to add the AspNetCacheProvider class to the relevant custom configuration section in the CacheSample.UI.Web.Config file. To do this there needs to be a <configSections> element added as the first element in <configuration>. This will match a custom section called <cacheProvider> with the CacheProviderConfigurationSection. Then we add a <cacheProvider> element, with a type property set to the fully qualified assembly name of the AspNetCacheProvider class, as shown below: <?xmlversion="1.0"?>   <configuration>  <configSections>     <sectionname="cacheProvider" type="CacheSample.Base.Configuration.CacheProviderConfigurationSection, CacheSample.Base" />  </configSections>    <connectionStrings>     <addname="CacheSample"          connectionString="data source=.\SQLEXPRESS;Integrated Security=SSPI;Initial Catalog=CacheSample"          providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />  </connectionStrings>    <cacheProvidertype="CacheSample.CacheProvider.AspNetCacheProvider`1, CacheSample.CacheProvider, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null">  </cacheProvider>    <system.web>     <compilationdebug="true"targetFramework="4.0" />  </system.web>   </configuration>   One point to note is that the fully qualified assembly name of the AspNetCacheProvider class includes the notation `1 after the class name, which indicates that it is a generic class with a single generic type parameter. The CacheSample.UI project needs to have references added to CacheSample.Caching and CacheSample.CacheProvider so that the actual application is aware of the relevant cache provider implementation. Conclusion After implementing this solution, you should have a working cache provider mechanism, that will allow the middle and data access layers to implement caching support when retrieving data, without any knowledge of the actually caching implementation. If the UI is not ASP.NET based, if for example it is Winforms or WPF, the implementation of ICacheProvider<T> would be written around whatever technology is available. It could even be a standalone caching system that takes full responsibility for adding and removing items from a global store. The next part of this article will show how this caching mechanism may be extended to provide support for cache dependencies, such as the System.Web.Caching.SqlCacheDependency. Another possible extension would be to cache the cache provider implementations instead of storing them in a static Dictionary in the CacheProviderFactory. This would prevent a build up of seldom used cache providers in the application memory, as they could be removed from the cache if not used often enough, although in reality there are probably unlikely to be vast numbers of cache provider implementation instances, as most applications do not have a massive number of business object or model types.

    Read the article

  • ResolveUrl() from WCF service

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    I wanted to ResolveUrl() from WCF service and foundhttp://www.west-wind.com/weblog/posts/2007/Sep/18/ResolveUrl-without-Page .However the function assumes that the call is synchronous, in asynchronous call (e.g called from TPL task) HttpContext.Current==null.I had to split my asynchronous method into two-a long asynchronous one, invoked as task and generating relative URL and a post-task, that is calling wwWebUtils.ResolveServerUrl(relativeUrL)The http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/205425/ASP-NET-ResolveUrl-Without-Page  article suggests to useSystem.Web.VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/default.aspx");but i expect, it wouldn’t work from asynchronous thread as well.

    Read the article

  • Global ValidateAntiForgeryToken in MVC3

    - by Nettuce
    public class GlobalValidateAntiForgeryToken : AuthorizeAttribute     {         public override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext)         {             if (filterContext.HttpContext.Request.HttpMethod == WebRequestMethods.Http.Post)             {                new ValidateAntiForgeryTokenAttribute().OnAuthorization(filterContext);             }         }     } And add to the Global.asax:        public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)         {             filters.Add(new GlobalValidateAntiForgeryToken());         }

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC ‘Extendable-hooks’ – ControllerActionInvoker class

    - by nmarun
    There’s a class ControllerActionInvoker in ASP.NET MVC. This can be used as one of an hook-points to allow customization of your application. Watching Brad Wilsons’ Advanced MP3 from MVC Conf inspired me to write about this class. What MSDN says: “Represents a class that is responsible for invoking the action methods of a controller.” Well if MSDN says it, I think I can instill a fair amount of confidence into what the class does. But just to get to the details, I also looked into the source code for MVC. Seems like the base class Controller is where an IActionInvoker is initialized: 1: protected virtual IActionInvoker CreateActionInvoker() { 2: return new ControllerActionInvoker(); 3: } In the ControllerActionInvoker (the O-O-B behavior), there are different ‘versions’ of InvokeActionMethod() method that actually call the action method in question and return an instance of type ActionResult. 1: protected virtual ActionResult InvokeActionMethod(ControllerContext controllerContext, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor, IDictionary<string, object> parameters) { 2: object returnValue = actionDescriptor.Execute(controllerContext, parameters); 3: ActionResult result = CreateActionResult(controllerContext, actionDescriptor, returnValue); 4: return result; 5: } I guess that’s enough on the ‘behind-the-screens’ of this class. Let’s see how we can use this class to hook-up extensions. Say I have a requirement that the user should be able to get different renderings of the same output, like html, xml, json, csv and so on. The user will type-in the output format in the url and should the get result accordingly. For example: http://site.com/RenderAs/ – renders the default way (the razor view) http://site.com/RenderAs/xml http://site.com/RenderAs/csv … and so on where RenderAs is my controller. There are many ways of doing this and I’m using a custom ControllerActionInvoker class (even though this might not be the best way to accomplish this). For this, my one and only route in the Global.asax.cs is: 1: routes.MapRoute("RenderAsRoute", "RenderAs/{outputType}", 2: new {controller = "RenderAs", action = "Index", outputType = ""}); Here the controller name is ‘RenderAsController’ and the action that’ll get called (always) is the Index action. The outputType parameter will map to the type of output requested by the user (xml, csv…). I intend to display a list of food items for this example. 1: public class Item 2: { 3: public int Id { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public Cuisine Cuisine { get; set; } 6: } 7:  8: public class Cuisine 9: { 10: public int CuisineId { get; set; } 11: public string Name { get; set; } 12: } Coming to my ‘RenderAsController’ class. I generate an IList<Item> to represent my model. 1: private static IList<Item> GetItems() 2: { 3: Cuisine cuisine = new Cuisine { CuisineId = 1, Name = "Italian" }; 4: Item item = new Item { Id = 1, Name = "Lasagna", Cuisine = cuisine }; 5: IList<Item> items = new List<Item> { item }; 6: item = new Item {Id = 2, Name = "Pasta", Cuisine = cuisine}; 7: items.Add(item); 8: //... 9: return items; 10: } My action method looks like 1: public IList<Item> Index(string outputType) 2: { 3: return GetItems(); 4: } There are two things that stand out in this action method. The first and the most obvious one being that the return type is not of type ActionResult (or one of its derivatives). Instead I’m passing the type of the model itself (IList<Item> in this case). We’ll convert this to some type of an ActionResult in our custom controller action invoker class later. The second thing (a little subtle) is that I’m not doing anything with the outputType value that is passed on to this action method. This value will be in the RouteData dictionary and we’ll use this in our custom invoker class as well. It’s time to hook up our invoker class. First, I’ll override the Initialize() method of my RenderAsController class. 1: protected override void Initialize(RequestContext requestContext) 2: { 3: base.Initialize(requestContext); 4: string outputType = string.Empty; 5:  6: // read the outputType from the RouteData dictionary 7: if (requestContext.RouteData.Values["outputType"] != null) 8: { 9: outputType = requestContext.RouteData.Values["outputType"].ToString(); 10: } 11:  12: // my custom invoker class 13: ActionInvoker = new ContentRendererActionInvoker(outputType); 14: } Coming to the main part of the discussion – the ContentRendererActionInvoker class: 1: public class ContentRendererActionInvoker : ControllerActionInvoker 2: { 3: private readonly string _outputType; 4:  5: public ContentRendererActionInvoker(string outputType) 6: { 7: _outputType = outputType.ToLower(); 8: } 9: //... 10: } So the outputType value that was read from the RouteData, which was passed in from the url, is being set here in  a private field. Moving to the crux of this article, I now override the CreateActionResult method. 1: protected override ActionResult CreateActionResult(ControllerContext controllerContext, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor, object actionReturnValue) 2: { 3: if (actionReturnValue == null) 4: return new EmptyResult(); 5:  6: ActionResult result = actionReturnValue as ActionResult; 7: if (result != null) 8: return result; 9:  10: // This is where the magic happens 11: // Depending on the value in the _outputType field, 12: // return an appropriate ActionResult 13: switch (_outputType) 14: { 15: case "json": 16: { 17: JavaScriptSerializer serializer = new JavaScriptSerializer(); 18: string json = serializer.Serialize(actionReturnValue); 19: return new ContentResult { Content = json, ContentType = "application/json" }; 20: } 21: case "xml": 22: { 23: XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(actionReturnValue.GetType()); 24: using (StringWriter writer = new StringWriter()) 25: { 26: serializer.Serialize(writer, actionReturnValue); 27: return new ContentResult { Content = writer.ToString(), ContentType = "text/xml" }; 28: } 29: } 30: case "csv": 31: controllerContext.HttpContext.Response.AddHeader("Content-Disposition", "attachment; filename=items.csv"); 32: return new ContentResult 33: { 34: Content = ToCsv(actionReturnValue as IList<Item>), 35: ContentType = "application/ms-excel" 36: }; 37: case "pdf": 38: string filePath = controllerContext.HttpContext.Server.MapPath("~/items.pdf"); 39: controllerContext.HttpContext.Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", 40: "attachment; filename=items.pdf"); 41: ToPdf(actionReturnValue as IList<Item>, filePath); 42: return new FileContentResult(StreamFile(filePath), "application/pdf"); 43:  44: default: 45: controllerContext.Controller.ViewData.Model = actionReturnValue; 46: return new ViewResult 47: { 48: TempData = controllerContext.Controller.TempData, 49: ViewData = controllerContext.Controller.ViewData 50: }; 51: } 52: } A big method there! The hook I was talking about kinda above actually is here. This is where different kinds / formats of output get returned based on the output type requested in the url. When the _outputType is not set (string.Empty as set in the Global.asax.cs file), the razor view gets rendered (lines 45-50). This is the default behavior in most MVC applications where-in a view (webform/razor) gets rendered on the browser. As you see here, this gets returned as a ViewResult. But then, for an outputType of json/xml/csv, a ContentResult gets returned, while for pdf, a FileContentResult is returned. Here are how the different kinds of output look like: This is how we can leverage this feature of ASP.NET MVC to developer a better application. I’ve used the iTextSharp library to convert to a pdf format. Mike gives quite a bit of detail regarding this library here. You can download the sample code here. (You’ll get an option to download once you open the link). Verdict: Hot chocolate: $3; Reebok shoes: $50; Your first car: $3000; Being able to extend a web application: Priceless.

    Read the article

  • How I can export a datatable to MS word 2007, excel 2007,csv from asp.net?

    - by bala3569
    Hi, I am using the below code to Export DataTable to MS Word,Excel,CSV format & it's working fine. But problem is that this code export to MS Word 2003,Excel 2003 version. I need to Export my DataTable to Word 2007,Excel 2007,CSV because I am supposed to handle more than 100,000 records at a time and as we know Excel 2003 supports for only 65,000 records. Please help me out if you know that how to export DataTable or DataSet to MS Word 2007,Excel 2007. public static void Convertword(DataTable dt, HttpResponse Response,string filename) { Response.Clear(); Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment;filename=" + filename + ".doc"); Response.Charset = ""; Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.NoCache); Response.ContentType = "application/vnd.word"; System.IO.StringWriter stringWrite = new System.IO.StringWriter(); System.Web.UI.HtmlTextWriter htmlWrite = new System.Web.UI.HtmlTextWriter(stringWrite); System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView dg = new System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView(); dg.DataSource = dt; dg.DataBind(); dg.RenderControl(htmlWrite); Response.Write(stringWrite.ToString()); Response.End(); //HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); } public static void Convertexcel(DataTable dt, HttpResponse Response, string filename) { Response.Clear(); Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment;filename=" + filename + ".xls"); Response.Charset = ""; Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.NoCache); Response.ContentType = "application/vnd.ms-excel"; System.IO.StringWriter stringWrite = new System.IO.StringWriter(); System.Web.UI.HtmlTextWriter htmlWrite = new System.Web.UI.HtmlTextWriter(stringWrite); System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataGrid dg = new System.Web.UI.WebControls.DataGrid(); dg.DataSource = dt; dg.DataBind(); dg.RenderControl(htmlWrite); Response.Write(stringWrite.ToString()); Response.End(); //HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); } public static void ConvertCSV(DataTable dataTable, HttpResponse Response, string filename) { Response.Clear(); Response.Buffer = true; Response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment;filename=" + filename + ".csv"); Response.Charset = ""; Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.NoCache); Response.ContentType = "Application/x-msexcel"; StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); if (dataTable.Columns.Count != 0) { foreach (DataColumn column in dataTable.Columns) { sb.Append(column.ColumnName + ','); } sb.Append("\r\n"); foreach (DataRow row in dataTable.Rows) { foreach (DataColumn column in dataTable.Columns) { if(row[column].ToString().Contains(',')==true) { row[column] = row[column].ToString().Replace(",", ""); } sb.Append(row[column].ToString() + ','); } sb.Append("\r\n"); } } Response.Write(sb.ToString()); Response.End(); //HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance.CompleteRequest(); }

    Read the article

  • Why does IHttpAsyncHandler leak memory under load?

    - by Anton
    I have noticed that the .NET IHttpAsyncHandler (and the IHttpHandler, to a lesser degree) leak memory when subjected to concurrent web requests. In my tests, the development web server (Cassini) jumps from 6MB memory to over 100MB, and once the test is finished, none of it is reclaimed. The problem can be reproduced easily. Create a new solution (LeakyHandler) with two projects: An ASP.NET web application (LeakyHandler.WebApp) A Console application (LeakyHandler.ConsoleApp) In LeakyHandler.WebApp: Create a class called TestHandler that implements IHttpAsyncHandler. In the request processing, do a brief Sleep and end the response. Add the HTTP handler to Web.config as test.ashx. In LeakyHandler.ConsoleApp: Generate a large number of HttpWebRequests to test.ashx and execute them asynchronously. As the number of HttpWebRequests (sampleSize) is increased, the memory leak is made more and more apparent. LeakyHandler.WebApp TestHandler.cs namespace LeakyHandler.WebApp { public class TestHandler : IHttpAsyncHandler { #region IHttpAsyncHandler Members private ProcessRequestDelegate Delegate { get; set; } public delegate void ProcessRequestDelegate(HttpContext context); public IAsyncResult BeginProcessRequest(HttpContext context, AsyncCallback cb, object extraData) { Delegate = ProcessRequest; return Delegate.BeginInvoke(context, cb, extraData); } public void EndProcessRequest(IAsyncResult result) { Delegate.EndInvoke(result); } #endregion #region IHttpHandler Members public bool IsReusable { get { return true; } } public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) { Thread.Sleep(10); context.Response.End(); } #endregion } } LeakyHandler.WebApp Web.config <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration> <system.web> <compilation debug="false" /> <httpHandlers> <add verb="POST" path="test.ashx" type="LeakyHandler.WebApp.TestHandler" /> </httpHandlers> </system.web> </configuration> LeakyHandler.ConsoleApp Program.cs namespace LeakyHandler.ConsoleApp { class Program { private static int sampleSize = 10000; private static int startedCount = 0; private static int completedCount = 0; static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("Press any key to start."); Console.ReadKey(); string url = "http://localhost:3000/test.ashx"; for (int i = 0; i < sampleSize; i++) { HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)WebRequest.Create(url); request.Method = "POST"; request.BeginGetResponse(GetResponseCallback, request); Console.WriteLine("S: " + Interlocked.Increment(ref startedCount)); } Console.ReadKey(); } static void GetResponseCallback(IAsyncResult result) { HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)result.AsyncState; HttpWebResponse response = (HttpWebResponse)request.EndGetResponse(result); try { using (Stream stream = response.GetResponseStream()) { using (StreamReader streamReader = new StreamReader(stream)) { streamReader.ReadToEnd(); System.Console.WriteLine("C: " + Interlocked.Increment(ref completedCount)); } } response.Close(); } catch (Exception ex) { System.Console.WriteLine("Error processing response: " + ex.Message); } } } }

    Read the article

  • Creating PDF documents dynamically using Umbraco and XSL-FO part 2

    - by Vizioz Limited
    Since my last post I have made a few modifications to the PDF generation, the main one being that the files are now dynamically renamed so that they reflect the name of the case study instead of all being called PDF.PDF which was not a very helpful filename, I just wanted to get something live last week, so decided that something was better than nothing :)The issue with the filenames comes down to the way that the PDF's are being generated by using an alternative template in Umbraco, this means that all you need to do is add " /pdf " to the end of a case study URL and it will create a PDF version of the case study. The down side is that your browser will merrily download the file and save it as PDF.PDF because that is the name of the last part of the URL.What you need to do is set the content-disposition header to be equal to the name you would like the file use, Darren Ferguson mentioned this on the Change the name of the PDF forum post.We have used the same technique for downloading dynamically generated excel files, so I thought it would be useful to create a small macro to set both this header and also to set the caching headers to prevent any caching issues, I think in the past we have experienced all possible issues, including various issues where IE behaves differently to other browsers when you are using SSL and so the below code should work in all situations!The template for the PDF alternative template is very simple:<%@ Master Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/umbraco/masterpages/default.master" AutoEventWireup="true" %><asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="ContentPlaceHolderDefault" runat="server"> <umbraco:Macro Alias="PDFHeaders" runat="server"></umbraco:Macro> <umbraco:Macro xsl="FO-CaseStudy.xslt" Alias="PDFXSLFO" runat="server"></umbraco:Macro></asp:Content>The following code snippet is the XSLT macro that simply creates our file name and then passes the file name into the helper function:<xsl:template match="/"> <xsl:variable name="fileName"> <xsl:text>Vizioz_</xsl:text> <xsl:value-of select="$currentPage/@nodeName" /> <xsl:text>_case_study.pdf</xsl:text> </xsl:variable> <xsl:value-of select="Vizioz.Helper:AddDocumentDownloadHeaders('application/pdf', $fileName)"/> </xsl:template>And the following code is the helper function that clears the current response and adds all the appropriate headers:public static void AddDocumentDownloadHeaders(string contentType, string fileName){ HttpResponse response = HttpContext.Current.Response; HttpRequest request = HttpContext.Current.Request; response.Clear(); response.ClearHeaders(); if (request.IsSecureConnection & request.Browser.Browser == "IE") { // Don't use the caching headers if the browser is IE and it's a secure connection // see: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/323308 } else { // force not using the cache response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "no-cache"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "private"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "no-store"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "must-revalidate"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "max-stale=0"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "post-check=0"); response.AppendHeader("Cache-Control", "pre-check=0"); response.AppendHeader("Pragma", "no-cache"); response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.NoCache); response.Cache.SetNoStore(); response.Cache.SetExpires(DateTime.UtcNow.AddMinutes(-1)); } response.AppendHeader("Expires", DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(-1).ToLongDateString()); response.AppendHeader("Keep-Alive", "timeout=3, max=993"); response.AddHeader("content-disposition", "attachment; filename=\"" + fileName + "\""); response.ContentType = contentType;}I will write another blog soon with some more details about XSL-FO and how to create the PDF's dynamically.Please do re-tweet if you find this interest :)

    Read the article

  • Routes for IIS Classic and Integrated Mode

    - by imran_ku07
         Introduction:             ASP.NET MVC Routing feature makes it very easy to provide clean URLs. You just need to configure routes in global.asax file to create an application with clean URLs. In most cases you define routes works in IIS 6, IIS 7 (or IIS 7.5) Classic and Integrated mode. But in some cases your routes may only works in IIS 7 Integrated mode, like in the case of using extension less URLs in IIS 6 without a wildcard extension map. So in this article I will show you how to create different routes which works in IIS 6 and IIS 7 Classic and Integrated mode.       Description:             Let's say that you need to create an application which must work both in Classic and Integrated mode. Also you have no control to setup a wildcard extension map in IIS. So you need to create two routes. One with extension less URL for Integrated mode and one with a URL with an extension for Classic Mode.   routes.MapRoute( "DefaultClassic", // Route name "{controller}.aspx/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } // Parameter defaults ); routes.MapRoute( "DefaultIntegrated", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } // Parameter defaults );               Now you have set up two routes, one for Integrated mode and one for Classic mode. Now you only need to ensure that Integrated mode route should only match if the application is running in Integrated mode and Classic mode route should only match if the application is running in Classic mode. For making this work you need to create two custom constraint for Integrated and Classic mode. So replace the above routes with these routes,     routes.MapRoute( "DefaultClassic", // Route name "{controller}.aspx/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }, // Parameter defaults new { mode = new ClassicModeConstraint() }// Constraints ); routes.MapRoute( "DefaultIntegrated", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }, // Parameter defaults new { mode = new IntegratedModeConstraint() }// Constraints );            The first route which is for Classic mode adds a ClassicModeConstraint and second route which is for Integrated mode adds a IntegratedModeConstraint. Next you need to add the implementation of these constraint classes.     public class ClassicModeConstraint : IRouteConstraint { public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route, string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values, RouteDirection routeDirection) { return !HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline; } } public class IntegratedModeConstraint : IRouteConstraint { public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route, string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values, RouteDirection routeDirection) { return HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline; } }             HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline returns true if the application is running on Integrated mode; otherwise, it returns false. So routes for Integrated mode only matched when the application is running on Integrated mode and routes for Classic mode only matched when the application is not running on Integrated mode.       Summary:             During developing applications, sometimes developers are not sure that whether this application will be host on IIS 6 or IIS 7 (or IIS 7.5) Integrated mode or Classic mode. So it's a good idea to create separate routes for both Classic and Integrated mode so that your application will use extension less URLs where possible and use URLs with an extension where it is not possible to use extension less URLs. In this article I showed you how to create separate routes for IIS Integrated and Classic mode. Hope you will enjoy this article too.   SyntaxHighlighter.all()

    Read the article

  • MvcExtensions - ActionFilter

    - by kazimanzurrashid
    One of the thing that people often complains is dependency injection in Action Filters. Since the standard way of applying action filters is to either decorate the Controller or the Action methods, there is no way you can inject dependencies in the action filter constructors. There are quite a few posts on this subject, which shows the property injection with a custom action invoker, but all of them suffers from the same small bug (you will find the BuildUp is called more than once if the filter implements multiple interface e.g. both IActionFilter and IResultFilter). The MvcExtensions supports both property injection as well as fluent filter configuration api. There are a number of benefits of this fluent filter configuration api over the regular attribute based filter decoration. You can pass your dependencies in the constructor rather than property. Lets say, you want to create an action filter which will update the User Last Activity Date, you can create a filter like the following: public class UpdateUserLastActivityAttribute : FilterAttribute, IResultFilter { public UpdateUserLastActivityAttribute(IUserService userService) { Check.Argument.IsNotNull(userService, "userService"); UserService = userService; } public IUserService UserService { get; private set; } public void OnResultExecuting(ResultExecutingContext filterContext) { // Do nothing, just sleep. } public void OnResultExecuted(ResultExecutedContext filterContext) { Check.Argument.IsNotNull(filterContext, "filterContext"); string userName = filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated ? filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name : null; if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(userName)) { UserService.UpdateLastActivity(userName); } } } As you can see, it is nothing different than a regular filter except that we are passing the dependency in the constructor. Next, we have to configure this filter for which Controller/Action methods will execute: public class ConfigureFilters : ConfigureFiltersBase { protected override void Configure(IFilterRegistry registry) { registry.Register<HomeController, UpdateUserLastActivityAttribute>(); } } You can register more than one filter for the same Controller/Action Methods: registry.Register<HomeController, UpdateUserLastActivityAttribute, CompressAttribute>(); You can register the filters for a specific Action method instead of the whole controller: registry.Register<HomeController, UpdateUserLastActivityAttribute, CompressAttribute>(c => c.Index()); You can even set various properties of the filter: registry.Register<ControlPanelController, CustomAuthorizeAttribute>( attribute => { attribute.AllowedRole = Role.Administrator; }); The Fluent Filter registration also reduces the number of base controllers in your application. It is very common that we create a base controller and decorate it with action filters and then we create concrete controller(s) so that the base controllers action filters are also executed in the concrete controller. You can do the  same with a single line statement with the fluent filter registration: Registering the Filters for All Controllers: registry.Register<ElmahHandleErrorAttribute>(new TypeCatalogBuilder().Add(GetType().Assembly).Include(type => typeof(Controller).IsAssignableFrom(type))); Registering Filters for selected Controllers: registry.Register<ElmahHandleErrorAttribute>(new TypeCatalogBuilder().Add(GetType().Assembly).Include(type => typeof(Controller).IsAssignableFrom(type) && (type.Name.StartsWith("Home") || type.Name.StartsWith("Post")))); You can also use the built-in filters in the fluent registration, for example: registry.Register<HomeController, OutputCacheAttribute>(attribute => { attribute.Duration = 60; }); With the fluent filter configuration you can even apply filters to controllers that source code is not available to you (may be the controller is a part of a third part component). That’s it for today, in the next post we will discuss about the Model binding support in MvcExtensions. So stay tuned.

    Read the article

  • Replacing ASP.NET Forms Authentication with WIF Session Authentication (for the better)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    ASP.NET Forms Authentication and WIF Session Authentication (which has *nothing* to do with ASP.NET sessions) are very similar. Both inspect incoming requests for a special cookie that contains identity information, if that cookie is present it gets validated and if that is successful, the identity information is made available to the application via HttpContext.User/Thread.CurrentPrincipal. The main difference between the two is the identity to cookie serialization engine that sits below. Whereas ForsmAuth can only store the name of the user and an additional UserData string. It is limited to a single cookie and hardcoded to protection via the machine key. WIF session authentication in turn has these additional features: Can serialize a complete ClaimsPrincipal (including claims) to the cookie(s). Has a cookie overflow mechanism when data gets too big. In total it can create up to 8 cookies (á 4 KB) per domain (not that I would recommend round tripping that much data). Supports server side caching (which is an extensible mechanism). Has an extensible mechanism for protection (DPAPI by default, RSA as an option for web farms, and machine key based protection is coming in .NET 4.5) So in other words – session authentication is the superior technology, and if done cleverly enough you can replace FormsAuth without any changes to your application code. The only features missing is the redirect mechanism to a login page and an easy to use API to set authentication cookies. But that’s easy to add ;) FormsSessionAuthenticationModule This module is a sub class of the standard WIF session module, adding the following features: Handling EndRequest to do the redirect on 401s to the login page configured for FormsAuth. Reads the FormsAuth cookie name, cookie domain, timeout and require SSL settings to configure the module accordingly. Implements sliding expiration if configured for FormsAuth. It also uses the same algorithm as FormsAuth to calculate when the cookie needs renewal. Implements caching of the principal on the server side (aka session mode) if configured in an AppSetting. Supports claims transformation via a ClaimsAuthenticationManager. As you can see, the whole module is designed to easily replace the FormsAuth mechanism. Simply set the authentication mode to None and register the module. In the spirit of the FormsAuthentication class, there is also now a SessionAuthentication class with the same methods and signatures (e.g. SetAuthCookie and SignOut). The rest of your application code should not be affected. In addition the session module looks for a HttpContext item called “NoRedirect”. If that exists, the redirect to the login page will *not* happen, instead the 401 is passed back to the client. Very useful if you are implementing services or web APIs where you want the actual status code to be preserved. A corresponding UnauthorizedResult is provided that gives you easy access to the context item. The download contains a sample app, the module and an inspector for session cookies and tokens. Let’s hope that in .NET 4.5 such a module comes out of the box. HTH

    Read the article

  • Ninject.Web, OnePerRequestModule, and IIS7 Integrated Pipeline

    - by Ted
    Using Ninject.Web with ASP.NET WebForms project. Works without issues using classic pipeline, but when it's under integrated pipeline, a null reference exception occurs on every request (which I've narrowed down to the use of the OnePerRequestModule): [NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.] System.Web.PipelineStepManager.ResumeSteps(Exception error) +1216 System.Web.HttpApplication.BeginProcessRequestNotification(HttpContext context, AsyncCallback cb) +113 System.Web.HttpRuntime.ProcessRequestNotificationPrivate(IIS7WorkerRequest wr, HttpContext context) +616 The above always occurs unless I remove the OnePerRequestModule initializization. occurs consistently on a very basic test app I put together. On a standard app where I actually want to implement it, I can solve the issue by initializing the OnePerRequestModule like so: protected override IKernel CreateKernel() { // This will always blow up. //var module = new OnePerRequestModule(); //module.Init(this); IKernel kernel = new StandardKernel(new MyModule()); // This works on larger app, but on basic app, it makes no difference under integrated pipeline as the above exception is always thrown. var module = new OnePerRequestModule(); module.Init(this); return kernel; } Before I start spelunking further, is anybody out there using Ninject.Web extension successfully under the integrated pipeline in IIS7 AND using the OnePerRequestModule? There are certain restrictions for modules under the integrated pipeline that weren't there in previous IIS versions/classic pipeline. Quickly thrown together sample project at http://www.filedropper.com/test_59 And in case it's not obvious with Ninject.Web: it's an ASP.NET WebForms project.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >