Search Results

Search found 26908 results on 1077 pages for 'asynchronous wcf call'.

Page 16/1077 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

• Pattern for limiting number of simultaneous asynchronous calls

  - by hitch

  I need to retrieve multiple objects from an external system. The external system supports multiple simultaneous requests (i.e. threads), but it is possible to flood the external system - therefore I want to be able to retrieve multiple objects asynchronously, but I want to be able to throttle the number of simultaneous async requests. i.e. I need to retrieve 100 items, but don't want to be retrieving more than 25 of them at once. When each request of the 25 completes, I want to trigger another retrieval, and once they are all complete I want to return all of the results in the order they were requested (i.e. there is no point returning the results until the entire call is returned). Are there any recommended patterns for this sort of thing? Would something like this be appropriate (pseudocode, obviously)? private List<externalSystemObjects> returnedObjects = new List<externalSystemObjects>; public List<externalSystemObjects> GetObjects(List<string> ids) { int callCount = 0; int maxCallCount = 25; WaitHandle[] handles; foreach(id in itemIds to get) { if(callCount < maxCallCount) { WaitHandle handle = executeCall(id, callback); addWaitHandleToWaitArray(handle) } else { int returnedCallId = WaitHandle.WaitAny(handles); removeReturnedCallFromWaitHandles(handles); } } WaitHandle.WaitAll(handles); return returnedObjects; } public void callback(object result) { returnedObjects.Add(result); }

  Read the article

• Web service performing asynchronous call

  - by kornelijepetak

  I have a webservice method FetchNumber() that fetches a number from a database and then returns it to the caller. But just before it returns the number to the caller, it needs to send this number to another service so instantiates and runs the BackgroundWorker whose job is to send this number to another service. public class FetchingNumberService : System.Web.Services.WebService { [WebMethod] public int FetchNumber() { int value = Database.GetNumber(); AsyncUpdateNumber async = new AsyncUpdateNumber(value); return value; } } public class AsyncUpdateNumber { public AsyncUpdateNumber(int number) { sendingNumber = number; worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += asynchronousCall; worker.RunWorkerAsync(); } private void asynchronousCall(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { // Sending a number to a service (which is Synchronous) here } private int sendingNumber; private BackgroundWorker worker; } I don't want to block the web service (FetchNumber()) while sending this number to another service, because it can take a long time and the caller does not care about sending the number to another service. Caller expects this to return as soon as possible. FetchNumber() makes the background worker and runs it, then finishes (while worker is running in the background thread). I don't need any progress report or return value from the background worker. It's more of a fire-and-forget concept. My question is this. Since the web service object is instantiated per method call, what happens when the called method (FetchNumber() in this case) is finished, while the background worker it instatiated and ran is still running? What happens to the background thread? When does GC collect the service object? Does this prevent the background thread from executing correctly to the end? Are there any other side-effects on the background thread? Thanks for any input.

  Read the article

• Cannot implicity convert type void to System.Threading.Tasks.Task<bool>

  - by sagesky36

  I have a WCF Service that contains the following method. All the methods in the service are asynchrounous and compile just fine. public async Task<Boolean> ValidateRegistrationAsync(String strUserName) { try { using (YeagerTechEntities DbContext = new YeagerTechEntities()) { DbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false; DbContext.Database.Connection.Open(); var reg = await DbContext.aspnet_Users.FirstOrDefaultAsync(f => f.UserName == strUserName); if (reg != null) return true; else return false; } } catch (Exception) { throw; } } My client application was set to access the WCF service with the check box for the "Allow generation of asynchronous operations" and it generated the proxy just fine. I am receiving the above subject error when trying to call this WCF service method from my client with the following code. Mind you, I know what the error message means, but this is my first time trying to call an asynchronous task in a WCF service from a client. Task<Boolean> blnMbrShip = db.ValidateRegistrationAsync(FormsAuthentication.Decrypt(cn.Value).Name); What do I need to do to properly call the method so the design time compile error disappears? Thanks so much in advance...

  Read the article

• WCF help, how can I expose a service over http, that calls another service over net.tcp?

  - by Hcabnettek

  Hi All, I have a WCF .svc file hosted in IIS. I want to use basicHTTP binding. This services job is to actually call another service over net.tcp. Everything works fine locally, but when I deployed, I'm getting this error. The provided URI scheme 'http' is invalid; expected 'net.tcp'. Parameter name: via Here is the server config <client> <endpoint address="net.tcp://localhost:9300/InternalInterfaceService" binding="netTcpBinding" bindingConfiguration="NetTcpBinding_IInternalInterfaceService" contract="IInternalInterfaceService" name="NetTcpBinding_IInternalInterfaceService"> <identity> <servicePrincipalName value="localhost" /> </identity> </endpoint> </client> <services> <service name="MyExternalService"> <endpoint address="" binding="basicHttpBinding" contract="IMyExternalService" /> </service> </services> And here is the config that svcutil generates <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <basicHttpBinding> <binding name="BasicHttpBinding_IMyExternalService" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" allowCookies="false" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferSize="65536" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" transferMode="Buffered" useDefaultWebProxy="true"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <security mode="None"> <transport clientCredentialType="None" proxyCredentialType="None" realm="" /> <message clientCredentialType="UserName" algorithmSuite="Default" /> </security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="http://myserver.somesdomain.com/Services/MyExternalService.svc" binding="basicHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="BasicHttpBinding_IMyExternalService" contract="IMyInternalService" name="BasicHttpBinding_IMyExternalService" /> </client> </system.serviceModel> What do I need to do to wire this up correctly. I do not want to expose InternalInterfaceService over http. What am I doing incorrectly here? Any tips or suggestions are certainly appreciated. Thanks, ~ck

  Read the article

• Typesafe fire-and-forget asynchronous delegate invocation in C#

  - by LBushkin

  I recently found myself needing a typesafe "fire-and-forget" mechanism for running code asynchronously. Ideally, what I would want to do is something like: var myAction = (Action)(() => Console.WriteLine("yada yada")); myAction.FireAndForget(); // async invocation Unfortunately, the obvious choice of calling BeginInvoke() without a corresponding EndInvoke() does not work - it results in a slow resource leak (since the asyn state is held by the runtime and never released ... it's expecting an eventual call to EndInvoke(). I also can't run the code on the .NET thread pool because it may take a very long time to complete (it's advised to only run relatively short-lived code on the thread pool) - this makes it impossible to use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). Initially, I only needed this behavior for methods whose signature matches Action, Action<...>, or Func<...>. So I put together a set of extension methods (see listing below) that let me do this without running into the resource leak. There are overloads for each version of Action/Func. Unfortunately, I now want to port this code to .NET 4 where the number of generic parameters on Action and Func have been increased substantially. Before I write a T4 script to generate these, I was also hoping to find a simpler more elegant way to do this. Any ideas are welcome. public static class AsyncExt { public static void FireAndForget( this Action action ) { action.BeginInvoke(OnActionCompleted, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1>( this Action<T1> action, T1 arg1 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnActionCompleted<T1>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,T2>( this Action<T1,T2> action, T1 arg1, T2 arg2 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, arg2, OnActionCompleted<T1, T2>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<TResult>(this Func<TResult> func, TResult arg1) { func.BeginInvoke(OnFuncCompleted<TResult>, func); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,TResult>(this Func<T1, TResult> action, T1 arg1) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>, action); } // more overloads of FireAndForget<..>() for Action<..> and Func<..> private static void OnActionCompleted( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1>( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action<T1>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1,T2>(IAsyncResult result) { var action = (Action<T1,T2>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<TResult>( IAsyncResult result ) { var func = (Func<TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>(IAsyncResult result) { var func = (Func<T1, TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke(result); } // more overloads of OnActionCompleted<> and OnFuncCompleted<> }

  Read the article

• Invoking WCF functions using Reflection

  - by Jankhana

  I am pretty new to WCF applications. I have a WCF application that is using NetTcpBinding. I wanted to invoke the functions in WCF service using the System.Reflection's Methodbase Invoke method. I mean I wanted to Dynamically call the Function by passing the String as the Function name. Reflection works great for Web Service or a Windows application or any dll or class. So their is certain way to do this for WCF also but I am not able to find that. I am getting the Assembly Name than it's type everything fine but as we cannot create an instance of the Interface class I tried to open the WCF connection using the binding and tried to pass that object but it's throwing the exception as : "Object does not match target type." I have opened the connection and passed the object and type is of interface only. I don't know whether I'm trying wrong thing or in wrong way. Any idea how shall I accomplish this??? The NetTCPBinding all are properly given while opening the connection. And one more thing I am using WCF as a Windows Service using NETTCPBinding.

  Read the article

• WCF push to client through firewall?

  - by Sire

  See also How does a WCF server inform a WCF client about changes? (Better solution then simple polling, e.g. Coment or long polling) I need to use push-technology with WCF through client firewalls. This must be a common problem, and I know for a fact it works in theory (see links below), but I have failed to get it working, and I haven't been able to find a code sample that demonstrates it. Requirements: WCF Clients connects to server through tcp port 80 (netTcpBinding). Server pushes back information at irregular intervals (1 min to several hours). Users should not have to configure their firewalls, server pushes must pass through firewalls that have all inbound ports closed. TCP duplex on the same connection is needed for this, a dual binding does not work since a port has to be opened on the client firewall. Clients sends heartbeats to server at regular intervals (perhaps every 15 mins) so server knows client is still alive. Server is IIS7 with WAS. The solution seems to be duplex netTcpBinding. Based on this information: WCF through firewalls and NATs Keeping connections open in IIS But I have yet to find a code sample that works.. I've tried combining the "Duplex" and "TcpActivation" samples from Microsoft's WCF Samples without any luck. Please can someone point me to example code that works, or build a small sample app. Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• WCF Custom Delegation/Authentication without Kerberos

  - by MichaelGG

  I'm building a simple WCF service, probably exposed via HTTPS, using NTLM security. Since not all users are going to be capable of using the service directly, we're writing a simple web front-end for the service. Users will auth with HTML to the web front-end. What we want is a way to delegate the user of the web site all the way to the WCF service. I understand Kerberos delegation can do this, but that's not available to us. What I want to do is make the web front-end account a specially trusted account, so that if a request hits the WCF service authenticated as "DOMAIN\WebApp", we read a WCF message header containing the real identity, then switch the principal to that and continue as normal. Is there any "simple" way of achieving this? Should I give up entirely on this idea, and instead make users "sign-in" to the WCF app and then do complete custom auth? The WCF extensibility and security options seem so vast, I'd like to get a heads up on which path to start heading down.

  Read the article

• WCF Service instead of ASMX Web Service?

  - by wchrisjohnson

  I'm writing a SOAP Server that will act as an endpoint for an external client. The external client expects SOAP 1.1. I'll be taking embedded business objects in the SOAP messages and passing them to an internal application, getting responses back and responding with SOAP messages to the eternal client. I did the traditional ASMX based web services several years ago. Now, I've been exploring WCF Services and wondering the best approach to take. 1) Should WCF be considered a superset of ASMX web services? 2) Is there any reason to still write new web services using ASMX instead of WCF? 3) Does WCF provide better facilities for working with SOAP messages, as opposed to SOAP Extensions? 4) Can I restrict communication to SOAP 1.1 using WCF, the way I can with a web.config change in ASMX? 5) Does WCF have an easy way to log or review the requests that hit the service without resorting to something like SOAP extensions? Sorry my questions are not very specific; still trying to get handle on what I need to know... Using VS2008, Windows Server 2008. Chris

  Read the article

• Understanding the Silverlight Dispatcher

  - by Matt

  I had a Invalid Cross Thread access issue, but a little research and I managed to fix it by using the Dispatcher. Now in my app I have objects with lazy loading. I'd make an Async call using WCF and as usual I use the Dispatcher to update my objects DataContext, however it didn't work for this scenario. I did however find a solution here. Here's what I don't understand. In my UserControl I have code to call an Toggle method on my object. The call to this method is within a Dispatcher like so. Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( () => _CurrentPin.ToggleInfoPanel() ); As I mentioned before this was not enough to satisfy Silverlight. I had to make another Dispatcher call within my object. My object is NOT a UIElement, but a simple class that handles all its own loading/saving. So the problem was fixed by calling Deployment.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke( () => dataContext.Detail = detail ); within my class. Why did I have to call the Dispatcher twice to achieve this? Shouldn't a high-level call be enough? Is there a difference between the Deployment.Current.Dispatcher and the Dispatcher in a UIElement?

  Read the article

• Silverlight 4 Tools for VS 2010 and WCF RIA Services Released

  - by ScottGu

  The final release of the Silverlight 4 Tools for Visual Studio 2010 and WCF RIA Services is now available for download.  Download and Install If you already have Visual Studio 2010 installed (or the free Visual Web Developer 2010 Express), then you can install both the Silverlight 4 Tooling Support as well as WCF RIA Services support by downloading and running this setup package (note: please make sure to uninstall the preview release of the Silverlight 4 Tools for VS 2010 if you have previously installed that).  The Silverlight 4 Tools for VS 2010 package extends the Silverlight support built into Visual Studio 2010 and enables support for Silverlight 4 applications as well.  It also installs WCF RIA Services application templates and libraries: Today’s release includes the English edition of the Silverlight 4 Tooling – localized versions will be available next month for other Visual Studio languages as well. Silverlight Tooling Support Visual Studio 2010 includes rich tooling support for building Silverlight and WPF applications. It includes a WYSIWYG designer surface that enables you to easily use controls to construct UI – including the ability to take advantage of layout containers, and apply styles and resources: The VS 2010 designer enables you to leverage the rich data binding support within Silverlight and WPF, and easily wire-up bindings on controls.  The Data Sources window within Silverlight projects can be used to reference POCO objects (plain old CLR objects), WCF Services, WCF RIA Services client proxies or SharePoint Lists.  For example, let’s assume we add a “Person” class like below to our project: We could then add it to the Data Source window which will cause it to show up like below in the IDE: We can optionally customize the default UI control types that are associated for each property on the object.  For example, below we’ll default the BirthDate property to be represented by a “DatePicker” control: And then when we drag/drop the Person type from the Data Sources onto the design-surface it will automatically create UI controls that are bound to the properties of our Person class: VS 2010 allows you to optionally customize each UI binding further by selecting a control, and then right-click on any of its properties within the property-grid and pull up the “Apply Bindings” dialog: This will bring up a floating data-binding dialog that enables you to easily configure things like the binding path on the data source object, specify a format convertor, specify string-format settings, specify how validation errors should be handled, etc: In addition to providing WYSIWYG designer support for WPF and Silverlight applications, VS 2010 also provides rich XAML intellisense and code editing support – enabling a rich source editing environment. Silverlight 4 Tool Enhancements Today’s Silverlight 4 Tooling Release for VS 2010 includes a bunch of nice new features.  These include: Support for Silverlight Out of Browser Applications and Elevated Trust Applications You can open up a Silverlight application’s project properties window and click the “Enable Running Application Out of Browser” checkbox to enable you to install an offline, out of browser, version of your Silverlight 4 application.  You can then customize a number of “out of browser” settings of your application within Visual Studio: Notice above how you can now indicate that you want to run with elevated trust, with hardware graphics acceleration, as well as customize things like the Window style of the application (allowing you to build a nice polished window style for consumer applications). Support for Implicit Styles and “Go to Value Definition” Support: Silverlight 4 now allows you to define “implicit styles” for your applications.  This allows you to style controls by type (for example: have a default look for all buttons) and avoid you having to explicitly reference styles from each control.  In addition to honoring implicit styles on the designer-surface, VS 2010 also now allows you to right click on any control (or on one of it properties) and choose the “Go to Value Definition…” context menu to jump to the XAML where the style is defined, and from there you can easily navigate onward to any referenced resources.  This makes it much easier to figure out questions like “why is my button red?”: Style Intellisense VS 2010 enables you to easily modify styles you already have in XAML, and now you get intellisense for properties and their values within a style based on the TargetType of the specified control.  For example, below we have a style being set for controls of type “Button” (this is indicated by the “TargetType” property).  Notice how intellisense now automatically shows us properties for the Button control (even within the <Setter> element): Great Video - Watch the Silverlight Designer Features in Action You can see all of the above Silverlight 4 Tools for Visual Studio 2010 features (and some more cool ones I haven’t mentioned) demonstrated in action within this 20 minute Silverlight.TV video on Channel 9: WCF RIA Services Today we also shipped the V1 release of WCF RIA Services.  It is included and automatically installed as part of the Silverlight 4 Tools for Visual Studio 2010 setup. WCF RIA Services makes it much easier to build business applications with Silverlight.  It simplifies the traditional n-tier application pattern by bringing together the ASP.NET and Silverlight platforms using the power of WCF for communication.  WCF RIA Services provides a pattern to write application logic that runs on the mid-tier and controls access to data for queries, changes and custom operations. It also provides end-to-end support for common tasks such as data validation, authentication and authorization based on roles by integrating with Silverlight components on the client and ASP.NET on the mid-tier. Put simply – it makes it much easier to query data stored on a server from a client machine, optionally manipulate/modify the data on the client, and then save it back to the server.  It supports a validation architecture that helps ensure that your data is kept secure and business rules are applied consistently on both the client and middle-tiers. WCF RIA Services uses WCF for communication between the client and the server  It supports both an optimized .NET to .NET binary serialization format, as well as a set of open extensions to the ATOM format known as ODATA and an optional JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format that can be used by any client. You can hear Nikhil and Dinesh talk a little about WCF RIA Services in this 13 minutes Channel 9 video. Putting it all Together – the Silverlight 4 Training Kit Check out the Silverlight 4 Training Kit to learn more about how to build business applications with Silverlight 4, Visual Studio 2010 and WCF RIA Services. The training kit includes 8 modules, 25 videos, and several hands-on labs that explain Silverlight 4 and WCF RIA Services concepts and walks you through building an end-to-end application with them.    The training kit is available for free and is a great way to get started. Summary I’m really excited about today’s release – as they really complete the Silverlight development story and deliver a great end to end runtime + tooling story for building applications.  All of the above features are available for use both in VS 2010 as well as the free Visual Web Developer 2010 Express Edition – making it really easy to get started building great solutions. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

  Read the article

• Why is my WCF Rest Service on IIS7 Authenticating TWICE!?!?

  - by TheAggie

  Ok, if someone could shed some light on this for me, I would greatly appreciate it. So here we go. I had a rest service running fine the other day but after I accidentally overwrote the web.config all hell broke loose. I've spent the past day and a half trying to sort things out but I can't seem to figure out what is missing or misplaced. So, I've designed this service around WCF Rest Contrib (http://wcfrestcontrib.codeplex.com)'s authentication process. Now, I can get this working fine on my localhost w/ the current web.config (minus the endpoint entry) but once I upload it to discountasp and select "basic authorization" in the ISS7 Manager, it appears that I'm getting authenticated twice! Once using my discount asp.net user/pass and then the next time using the application user/pass. Unfortunately I only provide one set of credentials and don't want to hard code my discountasp account info into the app. Like I said before, this worked fine a few days ago. Anyway. here is my web.config as it is now: <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration> <connectionStrings> <add name="SQL2008_ConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=sql2k8xx.discountasp.net;Initial Catalog=SQL2008_xx;Persist Security Info=True;User ID=SQL2008_xx_user;Password=myPass" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> </connectionStrings> <system.web> <httpRuntime maxRequestLength="204800" executionTimeout="3600"/> <compilation debug="true"> <assemblies> <add assembly="System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> </assemblies> </compilation> <httpModules> <add name="ServiceAnonymityModule" type="WcfRestContrib.Web.ServiceAnonymityModule, WcfRestContrib"/> </httpModules> </system.web> <system.codedom> <compilers> <compiler language="c#;cs;csharp" extension=".cs" warningLevel="4" type="Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider, System, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089"> <providerOption name="CompilerVersion" value="v3.5"/> <providerOption name="WarnAsError" value="false"/> </compiler> </compilers> </system.codedom> <system.webServer> <validation validateIntegratedModeConfiguration="false"/> <modules> <remove name="ServiceAnonymityModule"/> <add name="ServiceAnonymityModule" type="WcfRestContrib.Web.ServiceAnonymityModule, WcfRestContrib"/> </modules> <handlers> <remove name="WebServiceHandlerFactory-Integrated"/> </handlers> </system.webServer> <system.diagnostics> <trace autoflush="true" /> </system.diagnostics> <system.serviceModel> <serviceHostingEnvironment aspNetCompatibilityEnabled="false"> <baseAddressPrefixFilters> <add prefix="http://www.mydomain.com/myServiceBaseAddress"/> </baseAddressPrefixFilters> </serviceHostingEnvironment> <extensions> <behaviorExtensions> <add name="webAuthentication" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Configuration.WebAuthentication.ConfigurationBehaviorElement, WcfRestContrib, Version=1.0.5.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89183999a8dc93b5"/> <add name="errorHandler" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Configuration.ErrorHandler.BehaviorElement, WcfRestContrib, Version=1.0.5.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89183999a8dc93b5"/> <add name="webFormatter" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Configuration.WebDispatchFormatter.ConfigurationBehaviorElement, WcfRestContrib, Version=1.0.5.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89183999a8dc93b5"/> <add name="webErrorHandler" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Configuration.WebErrorHandler.ConfigurationBehaviorElement, WcfRestContrib, Version=1.0.5.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89183999a8dc93b5"/> </behaviorExtensions> </extensions> <bindings> <customBinding> <binding name="HttpStreamedRest"> <httpTransport maxReceivedMessageSize="209715200" manualAddressing="true" /> </binding> <binding name="HttpsStreamedRest"> <httpsTransport maxReceivedMessageSize="209715200" manualAddressing="true" /> </binding> </customBinding> </bindings> <behaviors> <serviceBehaviors> <behavior name="Rest"> <webAuthentication requireSecureTransport="false" authenticationHandlerType="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.WebBasicAuthenticationHandler, WcfRestContrib" usernamePasswordValidatorType="MyLibrary.Runtime.SecurityValidator, MyLibrary" source="MyRESTServiceRealm"/> <webFormatter> <formatters defaultMimeType="application/xml"> <formatter mimeTypes="application/xml,text/xml" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.Formatters.PoxDataContract, WcfRestContrib"/> <formatter mimeTypes="application/json" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.Formatters.DataContractJson, WcfRestContrib"/> <formatter mimeTypes="application/x-www-form-urlencoded" type="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Dispatcher.Formatters.FormUrlEncoded, WcfRestContrib"/> </formatters> </webFormatter> <errorHandler errorHandlerType="WcfRestContrib.ServiceModel.Web.WebErrorHandler, WcfRestContrib"/> <webErrorHandler returnRawException="true" logHandlerType="MyLibrary.Runtime.LogHandler, MyLibrary" unhandledErrorMessage="An error has occured processing your request. Please contact technical support for further assistance."/> </behavior> </serviceBehaviors> </behaviors> </system.serviceModel> </configuration> So, whenever I upload this and change the ISS setting to Basic Authentication, it looks like it is trying to use the default handler for authentication as if I try to enter my web app user/pass, I get an error screen which has the following detailed information about the moduel/handler Detailed Error Information Module: IIS Web Core Notification: AuthenticateRequest Handler: svc-ISAPI-2.0 Error Code: 0x80070005 Requested URL: http://www.mydomain.com:80/MyService.../MyService.svc Physical Path: E:\web\xxxxxx\htdocs\MyServiceBaseAddress\MyService.svc Logon Method: Not yet determined Logon User: Not yet determined Now for the fun stuff... i tried providing my discountasp.net account username/password for kicks and sure enough it responded properly for any [OperationContract] which doesn't have [OperationAuthentication] defined (which is only one or two of the operations I have). I thought this was strange, so I looked at fiddler and saw something interesting. Whenever I try request a procedure with [OperationAuthentication] defined and provide my discountasp.net username/pass I get two different "WWW-Authenticate" headers back in Fiddler: WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="MyRESTServiceRealm" WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="www.mydomain.com" On the other hand, if I try to access the same procedures with only my application's user/pass, I only get the site's header: WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="www.mydomain.com" My hypothesis is that for some reason I'm having to pass through the default "Basic Authorization" layer set by IIS before I can get to the application's "Custom Basic Authorization" layer. After verifying this by created an identical user/pass for my service that I use for my discountasp.net account, I was able to successfully pass both layers of authentication without any issues... so I think I can conclude that this is indeed the issue. Now how do I disable the default one? Do I need to do this in the IIS Manager, or in the web.config? Anyway, I have absolutely no idea how this is possible or what I need to do to resolve the issue, but I know that something is seriously out of whack. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.

  Read the article

• Using Node.js as an accelerator for WCF REST services

  - by Elton Stoneman

  Node.js is a server-side JavaScript platform "for easily building fast, scalable network applications". It's built on Google's V8 JavaScript engine and uses an (almost) entirely async event-driven processing model, running in a single thread. If you're new to Node and your reaction is "why would I want to run JavaScript on the server side?", this is the headline answer: in 150 lines of JavaScript you can build a Node.js app which works as an accelerator for WCF REST services*. It can double your messages-per-second throughput, halve your CPU workload and use one-fifth of the memory footprint, compared to the WCF services direct.   Well, it can if: 1) your WCF services are first-class HTTP citizens, honouring client cache ETag headers in request and response; 2) your services do a reasonable amount of work to build a response; 3) your data is read more often than it's written. In one of my projects I have a set of REST services in WCF which deal with data that only gets updated weekly, but which can be read hundreds of times an hour. The services issue ETags and will return a 304 if the client sends a request with the current ETag, which means in the most common scenario the client uses its local cached copy. But when the weekly update happens, then all the client caches are invalidated and they all need the same new data. Then the service will get hundreds of requests with old ETags, and they go through the full service stack to build the same response for each, taking up threads and processing time. Part of that processing means going off to a database on a separate cloud, which introduces more latency and downtime potential.   We can use ASP.NET output caching with WCF to solve the repeated processing problem, but the server will still be thread-bound on incoming requests, and to get the current ETags reliably needs a database call per request. The accelerator solves that by running as a proxy - all client calls come into the proxy, and the proxy routes calls to the underlying REST service. We could use Node as a straight passthrough proxy and expect some benefit, as the server would be less thread-bound, but we would still have one WCF and one database call per proxy call. But add some smart caching logic to the proxy, and share ETags between Node and WCF (so the proxy doesn't even need to call the servcie to get the current ETag), and the underlying service will only be invoked when data has changed, and then only once - all subsequent client requests will be served from the proxy cache.   I've built this as a sample up on GitHub: NodeWcfAccelerator on sixeyed.codegallery. Here's how the architecture looks:     The code is very simple. The Node proxy runs on port 8010 and all client requests target the proxy. If the client request has an ETag header then the proxy looks up the ETag in the tag cache to see if it is current - the sample uses memcached to share ETags between .NET and Node. If the ETag from the client matches the current server tag, the proxy sends a 304 response with an empty body to the client, telling it to use its own cached version of the data. If the ETag from the client is stale, the proxy looks for a local cached version of the response, checking for a file named after the current ETag. If that file exists, its contents are returned to the client as the body in a 200 response, which includes the current ETag in the header. If the proxy does not have a local cached file for the service response, it calls the service, and writes the WCF response to the local cache file, and to the body of a 200 response for the client. So the WCF service is only troubled if both client and proxy have stale (or no) caches.   The only (vaguely) clever bit in the sample is using the ETag cache, so the proxy can serve cached requests without any communication with the underlying service, which it does completely generically, so the proxy has no notion of what it is serving or what the services it proxies are doing. The relative path from the URL is used as the lookup key, so there's no shared key-generation logic between .NET and Node, and when WCF stores a tag it also stores the "read" URL against the ETag so it can be used for a reverse lookup, e.g:   Key Value /WcfSampleService/PersonService.svc/rest/fetch/3 "28cd4796-76b8-451b-adfd-75cb50a50fa6" "28cd4796-76b8-451b-adfd-75cb50a50fa6" /WcfSampleService/PersonService.svc/rest/fetch/3    In Node we read the cache using the incoming URL path as the key and we know that "28cd4796-76b8-451b-adfd-75cb50a50fa6" is the current ETag; we look for a local cached response in /caches/28cd4796-76b8-451b-adfd-75cb50a50fa6.body (and the corresponding .header file which contains the original service response headers, so the proxy response is exactly the same as the underlying service). When the data is updated, we need to invalidate the ETag cache – which is why we need the reverse lookup in the cache. In the WCF update service, we don't need to know the URL of the related read service - we fetch the entity from the database, do a reverse lookup on the tag cache using the old ETag to get the read URL, update the new ETag against the URL, store the new reverse lookup and delete the old one.   Running Apache Bench against the two endpoints gives the headline performance comparison. Making 1000 requests with concurrency of 100, and not sending any ETag headers in the requests, with the Node proxy I get 102 requests handled per second, average response time of 975 milliseconds with 90% of responses served within 850 milliseconds; going direct to WCF with the same parameters, I get 53 requests handled per second, mean response time of 1853 milliseconds, with 90% of response served within 3260 milliseconds. Informally monitoring server usage during the tests, Node maxed at 20% CPU and 20Mb memory; IIS maxed at 60% CPU and 100Mb memory.   Note that the sample WCF service does a database read and sleeps for 250 milliseconds to simulate a moderate processing load, so this is *not* a baseline Node-vs-WCF comparison, but for similar scenarios where the  service call is expensive but applicable to numerous clients for a long timespan, the performance boost from the accelerator is considerable.     * - actually, the accelerator will work nicely for any HTTP request, where the URL (path + querystring) uniquely identifies a resource. In the sample, there is an assumption that the ETag is a GUID wrapped in double-quotes (e.g. "28cd4796-76b8-451b-adfd-75cb50a50fa6") – which is the default for WCF services. I use that assumption to name the cache files uniquely, but it is a trivial change to adapt to other ETag formats.

  Read the article

• SharePoint 2010 Custom WCF Service - Windows and FBA Authentication

  - by e-rock

  I have SharePoint 2010 configured for Claims Based Authentication with both Windows and Forms Based Authentication (FBA) for external users. I also need to develop custom WCF Services. The issue is that I want Windows credentials passed into the WCF Service(s); however, I cannot seem to get the Windows credentials passed into the services. My custom WCF service appears to be using Anonymous authentication (which has to be enabled in IIS in order to display the FBA login screen). The example I have tried to follow is found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff521581.aspx. The WCF service gets deployed to _vti_bin (ISAPI folder). Here is the code for the .svc file <%@ ServiceHost Language="C#" Debug="true" Service="MyCompany.CustomerPortal.SharePoint.UI.ISAPI.MyCompany.Services.LibraryManagers.LibraryUploader, $SharePoint.Project.AssemblyFullName$" Factory="Microsoft.SharePoint.Client.Services.MultipleBaseAddressBasicHttpBindingServiceHostFactory, Microsoft.SharePoint.Client.ServerRuntime, Version=14.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=71e9bce111e9429c" CodeBehind="LibraryUploader.svc.cs" %> Here is the code behind for the .svc file [ServiceContract] public interface ILibraryUploader { [OperationContract] string SiteName(); } [BasicHttpBindingServiceMetadataExchangeEndpoint] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Required)] public class LibraryUploader : ILibraryUploader { //just try to return site title right now… public string SiteName() { WindowsIdentity identity = ServiceSecurityContext.Current.WindowsIdentity; ClaimsIdentity claimsIdentity = new ClaimsIdentity(identity); return SPContext.Current.Web.Title; } } The WCF test client I have just to test it out (WPF app) uses the following code to call the WCF service... private void Button1Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { BasicHttpBinding binding = new BasicHttpBinding(); binding.Security.Mode = BasicHttpSecurityMode.TransportCredentialOnly; binding.Security.Transport.ClientCredentialType = HttpClientCredentialType.Ntlm; EndpointAddress endpoint = new EndpointAddress( "http://dev.portal.data-image.local/_vti_bin/MyCompany.Services/LibraryManagers/LibraryUploader.svc"); LibraryUploaderClient libraryUploader = new LibraryUploaderClient(binding, endpoint); libraryUploader.ClientCredentials.Windows.AllowedImpersonationLevel = System.Security.Principal.TokenImpersonationLevel.Impersonation; MessageBox.Show(libraryUploader.SiteName()); } I am somewhat inexperienced with IIS security settings/configurations when it comes to Claims and trying to use both Windows and FBA. I am also inexperienced when it comes to WCF configurations for security. I usually develop internal biz apps and let Visual Studio decide what to use because security is rarely a concern.

  Read the article

• WCF Duplex Interaction with Web Server

  - by Mark Struzinski

  Here is my scenario, and it is causing us a considerable amount of grief at the moment: We have a vendor web service which provides base level telephony functionality. This service has a SOAP api, which we are leveraging to build up a custom UI that is integrated into our in house web apps. The api functions on 2 levels. You make standard client calls into the service to initiate actions, such as Login, Place Call, Hang Up, etc. On a different thread, the service sends events back to the client to alert the user of things that are occurring on the system (agent successfully logged in, call was disconnected, etc). I implemented a WCF service to sit between the web server and the vendor service. This WCF service operates in duplex mode, establishing a 2 way connection with the web server. The web server makes outbound calls to the WCF service, which routes them to the vendor's web service. Events are received back to the WCF service, which passes them onto the web server via a callback channel on the WCF client. As events are received on the web server, they are placed into a hash table with the user's name as the key, and a .NET queue as the value to hold the event. Each event is enqueued to the agent who owns it. On a 2 second interval, the web page polls the web server via an ajax request to get new events for the logged in user. It hits the hash table for the user key, dequeues any events that are present, and serializes them back up to the web page. From there, they are processed in order and appropriate messages are displayed to the user. This implementation performs well in a single user scenario. The second I put more than 1 user on the system, I start getting frequent timeouts with the following CommunicationException: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond We are running Windows Server 2008 R2 both servers. Both the web app and WCF service are running on .NET 3.5. The WCF service is running under the net.tcp protocol in duplex mode. The web app is ASP.NET MVC 2. Has anyone dealt with anything like this scenario? Is there a more efficient way (or a widely accepted pattern) to implement this?

  Read the article

• .NET web service call slower when performed asynchronously

  - by joelt

  I have an ASP.NET site, and some pages need to call a web service. I used Visual Studio's "Add Web Reference" to auto-generate classes and methods for the web service. When I call the service synchronously, i.e. objService.MethodName("param1"), a call might take a second or so. When I call it asynchronously, i.e., objService.BeginMethodName("param1", AddressOf MyCallback, Nothing), it typically takes about 6 seconds. When debugging, it appears that the bulk of the time is spent waiting between the completion of the BeginMethodName call and the beginning of MyCallback. Does the thread switching really incur that much overhead? Is there another reason for this?

  Read the article

• WCF GZip Compression Request/Response Processing

  - by IanT8

  How do I get a WCF client to process server responses which have been GZipped or Deflated by IIS? On IIS, I've followed the instructions here on how to make IIS 6 gzip all responses (where the request contained "Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate") emitted by .svc wcf services. On the client, I've followed the instructions here and here on how to inject this header into the web request: "Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate". Fiddler2 shows the response is binary and not plain old Xml. The client crashes with an exception which basically says there's no Xml header, which ofcourse is true. In my IClientMessageInspector, the app crashes before AfterReceiveReply is called. Some further notes: (1) I can't change the WCF service or client as they are supplied by a 3rd party. I can however attach behaviors and/or message inspectors via configuration if this is the right direction to take. (2) I don't want to compress/uncompress just the soap body, but the entire message. Any ideas/solutions? * SOLVED * It was not possible to write a WCF extension to achieve these goals. Instead I followed this CodeProject article which advocate a helper class: public class CompressibleHttpRequestCreator : IWebRequestCreate { public CompressibleHttpRequestCreator() { } WebRequest IWebRequestCreate.Create(Uri uri) { HttpWebRequest httpWebRequest = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(HttpWebRequest), BindingFlags.CreateInstance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance, null, new object[] { uri, null }, null) as HttpWebRequest; if (httpWebRequest == null) { return null; } httpWebRequest.AutomaticDecompression =DecompressionMethods.GZip | DecompressionMethods.Deflate; return httpWebRequest; } } and also, an addition to the application configuration file: <configuration> <system.net> <webRequestModules> <remove prefix="http:"/> <add prefix="http:" type="Pajocomo.Net.CompressibleHttpRequestCreator, Pajocomo" /> </webRequestModules> </system.net> </configuration> What seems to be happening is that WCF eventually asks some factory or other deep down in system.net to provide an HttpWebRequest instance, and we provide the helper that will be asked to create the required instance. In the WCF client configuration file, a simple basicHttpBinding is all that is required, without the need for any custom extensions. When the application runs, the client Http request contains the header "Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate", the server returns a gzipped web response, and the client transparently decompresses the http response before handing it over to WCF. When I tried to apply this technique to Web Services I found that it did NOT work. Although the helper class was executed in the same was as when used by the WCF client, the http request did not contain the "Accept-Encoding: ..." header. To make this work for Web Services, I had to edit the Web Proxy class, and add this method: protected override System.Net.WebRequest GetWebRequest(Uri uri) { System.Net.HttpWebRequest rq = (System.Net.HttpWebRequest)base.GetWebRequest(uri); rq.AutomaticDecompression = DecompressionMethods.GZip | DecompressionMethods.Deflate; return rq; } Note that it did not matter whether the CompressibleHttpRequestCreator and block from the application config file were present or not. For web services, only overriding GetWebRequest in the Web Service Proxy worked.

  Read the article

• WPF: Asynchronous progress bar

  - by SumGuy

  I'm trying to create a progress bar that will work asynchronously to the main process. I'm created a new event and invoked it however everytime I then try to perform operations on the progress bar I recieve the following error: "The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it" The following code is an attempt to send an instance of the progress bar to the event as an object, it obviously failed but it gives you an idea of what the code looks like. private event EventHandler importing; void MdbDataImport_importing(object sender, EventArgs e) { ProgressBar pb = (ProgressBar)sender; while (true) { if (pb.Value >= 200) pb.Value = 0; pb.Value += 10; } } private void btnImport_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { importing += new EventHandler(MdbDataImport_importing); IAsyncResult aResult = null; aResult = importing.BeginInvoke(pbDataImport, null, null, null); importing.EndInvoke(aResult); } Does anyone have ideas of how to do this. Thanks in advance SumGuy.

  Read the article

• Asynchronous PHP request (not AJAX)

  - by Renjith R

  Hi I am developing an eshop application. I am using webservice to create Order in Oracle database and websvc will give a response (OrderNumber) and I will inform customer that his Order (OrderNumber) is generated My problem The creation of order is taking too much time in backend system and user is keeping refreshing the page, On each refresh user is coming back to Order create Page, so user is able to click on create Order button again In such cases multiple orders are creating for same orderlines.I can restrict user to create only one order per session in case I got order number in websvc response and I can give ordernumber to customer in next page But real problem come when I didn't get response(Ordernumber) and user is refreshing page. request is already went to Backend system and it will create order and my applicaion will not get response Is there any method in PHP where we can asyncronously check the status of order if first request is initiated by user and it doesn't matter the furthur page navigation Please help me out.. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Asynchronous Image loading in certain custom UITableViewCells

  - by Dan

  So, I'm sure that this issue has been brought up before, but I haven't quite seen a solution for my specific problem. What I'm doing is loading a group of custom UITableViewCell's that are drawn using Loren Brichter's solution, each cell has some content, an icon (representing the user) that is asynchronously loaded into it, and a few other things. Eventually, I'm hoping to add support for images. Not every cell has an image, so in the creation of the cell, it determines if an image is required to be loaded and drawn into the cell. My problem is that I don't know how I can do that while keeping the image loaded asynchronously - with not every cell having the need to load an image (like needed with the icon) I'm not sure how to keep it in order when an cell is thrown off screen and re-rendered when the user scrolls over it. Each cell draws it content from an NSArray containing a custom object called FeedItem. All I'm really looking for is some sort of solution or idea to help me because right now I am at a loss. Thanks guys, I will appreciate the help.

  Read the article

• Asynchronous I/O on Mac OS X

  - by stas

  Hi, Meaning the C10K problem, what is the best way to do asynch I/O on Mac OS X (assume to use on Mac and iPhone/iPad)? On Linux our choice is epoll, on Windows is I/O Completion Ports. Top priority is performance and scalability (thousands of connections). Thanks

  Read the article

• Handling asynchronous responses

  - by James P.

  I'm building an FTP client from scratch and I've noticed that the response codes aren't immediate (which is no surprise). What would be a good approach for getting the corresponding code to a command? Below is an example of the output of Filezilla server. The response code is the three digits near the end of each line. (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> Connected, sending welcome message... (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> 220-FileZilla Server version 0.9.12 beta (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> 220-written by Tim Kosse ([email protected]) (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> 220 Please visit http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla/ (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> user anonymous (000057) 23/05/2010 19:43:10 - (not logged in) (127.0.0.1)> 331 Password required for anonymous

  Read the article

• asynchronous .js file loading syntax

  - by taber

  Hi, I noticed that there seems to be a couple of slightly different syntaxes for loading js files asynchronously, and I was wondering if there's any difference between the two, or if they both pretty much function the same. I'm guessing they work the same, but just wanted to make sure one method isn't better than the other for some reason. :) Method One (function() { var d=document, h=d.getElementsByTagName('head')[0], s=d.createElement('script'); s.type='text/javascript'; s.src='/js/myfile.js'; h.appendChild(s); })(); /* note ending parenthesis and curly brace */ Method Two (Saw this in Facebook's code) (function() { var d=document, h=d.getElementsByTagName('head')[0], s=d.createElement('script'); s.type='text/javascript'; s.async=true; s.src='/js/myfile.js'; h.appendChild(s); }()); /* note ending parenthesis and curly brace */

  Read the article

• How to block the UI during asynchronous operations in WPF

  - by mcintyre321

  We have a WPF app (actually a VSTO WPF app). On certain controls there are multiple elements which, when clicked, load data from a web service and update the UI. Right now, we carry out these web requests synchronously, blocking the UI thread until the response comes back. This prevents the user clicking around the app while the data is loading, potentially putting it into an invalid state to handle the data when it is returned. Of course the app becomes unresponsive if the request takes a long time. Ideally, we'd like to have the cancel button active during this time, but nothing else. Is there a clever way of doing this, or will we have to switch the requests to execute asynchronously using backgroundworker and write something that disables all the controls apart from the cancel button while a request is in progress?

  Read the article

• Javascript Detect All Images (Including Asynchronous)

  - by Zach

  Is there a way in javascript to detect all images in a document, including those that may be loaded asynchronously (and maybe after the DOM is ready)? I'm looking to create a function that can detect if Google Analytics has been loaded by searching through the DOM looking for "__utm.gif". document.images doesn't seem to hold this image as it's loaded asynchronously and not displayed.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >