We Keep Coding

Is it safe to make SqlConnection in a DAL class ThreadLocal?

I have the following DAL class hierarchy (partially shown), which I use for abstracting data access to the database. I would like to use it in a thread-safe manner:
public class DbAdapter : IDbAdapter, IDisposable
{
private SqlConnection _conn;
private readonly string _connString;
protected DbAdapter(string connString)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(connString))
throw new ArgumentException("Value cannot be null, empty or whitespace", nameof(connString));
_connString = connString;
}
public void Dispose()
{
CloseConnection();
}
public SqlConnection GetConnection()
{
if (_conn == null || _conn.State == ConnectionState.Closed)
_conn = new SqlConnection(_connString);
else if (_conn.State == ConnectionState.Broken)
{
_conn.Close();
_conn.Open();
}
return _conn;
}
public void CloseConnection()
{
if (_conn != null && _conn.State == ConnectionState.Open)
_conn.Close();
_conn = null;
}
public SqlCommand GetCommand(string query, SqlTransaction transaction)
{
var cmd = new SqlCommand
{
Connection = transaction != null ? transaction.Connection : GetConnection()
};
if (transaction != null)
cmd.Transaction = transaction;
cmd.CommandType = CommandType.Text;
cmd.CommandText = query;
cmd.CommandTimeout = 500;
return cmd;
}
// Omitted other methods
}
public class PersonDba : DbAdapter
{
//Omitted
public IList<Person> GetPersons(string whereClause, string orderClause, SqlTransaction transaction = null)
{
var query = "SELECT Id, Name, PersonId, Birthdate, Modified FROM Persons ";
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(whereClause))
query += whereClause;
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(orderClause))
query += orderClause;
IList<Person> result = new List<Person>();
var sqlCmd = GetCommand(query, transaction);
using (var reader = sqlCmd.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection))
{
while (reader.Read())
{
var person = new Person
{
Id = reader.GetInt32(reader.GetOrdinal("Id")),
PersonId = reader.GetInt32(reader.GetOrdinal("PersonId")),
Name = reader.GetString(reader.GetOrdinal("Name")),
Birthdate = reader.GetDateTime(reader.GetOrdinal("Birthdate")),
LastModified = reader.GetDateTime(reader.GetOrdinal("Modified"))
};
result.Add(person);
}
}
return result;
}
}
Typically, I inject a single instance of PersonDba into other classes, which contain multi-threaded code. In order to avoid locking around all access to that single instance within dependant code, I am thinking of making the SQLConnection DbAdapter._conn of type ThreadLocal<SqlConnection> (see ThreadLocal). Would that be enough to ensure using instances of this class is thread-safe?

Assuming that you want to keep open the possibility of making your DAL asynchronous in the future, by using the ExecuteReaderAsync instead of the ExecuteReader, then converting the field _conn of the class DbAdapter to ThreadLocal<SqlConnection> is not safe. The reason is that after awaiting the asynchronous request, the asynchronous workflow will most probably continue on another ThreadPool thread. So the wrong connection will be closed, and some other unrelated concurrent data access operation may be interrupted and aborted.

Why Connection not being closed in this code

I am maintaining a previous developer work.
Here is the db layer class, it has .......
public class Database
{
private string mConnString;
private SqlConnection mConn;
private SqlDataAdapter mAdapter;
private SqlCommand mCmd;
private SqlTransaction mTransaction;
private bool disposed = false;
public Database() : this(Web.GetWebConfigValue("ConnectionString"))
{
}
public Database(string connString)
{
mConnString = connString;
mConn = new SqlConnection(mConnString);
mConn.Open();
mAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter();
mCmd = new SqlCommand();
mCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure;
mCmd.Connection = mConn;
}
public void CloseConnection()
{
mConn.Close();
}
public void BeginTransaction()
{
mTransaction = mConn.BeginTransaction();
mCmd.Transaction = mTransaction;
}
public void CommitTransaction()
{
mTransaction.Commit();
}
public void RollbackTransaction()
{
mTransaction.Rollback();
}
public void AddParam(string name, SqlDbType type, object value)
{
SqlParameter parameter = new SqlParameter('#' + name, type);
parameter.Value = value;
mCmd.Parameters.Add(parameter);
}
public void ChangeParam(string name, object value)
{
mCmd.Parameters['#' + name].Value = value;
}
public void DeleteParam(string name)
{
mCmd.Parameters.RemoveAt('#' + name);
}
public void AddReturnParam()
{
SqlParameter parameter = new SqlParameter();
parameter.ParameterName = "return";
parameter.Direction = ParameterDirection.ReturnValue;
mCmd.Parameters.Add(parameter);
}
public void AddOutputParam(string name, SqlDbType type, int size)
{
SqlParameter parameter = new SqlParameter('#' + name, type);
parameter.Direction = ParameterDirection.Output;
parameter.Size = size;
mCmd.Parameters.Add(parameter);
}
public int GetReturnParam()
{
return (int)mCmd.Parameters["return"].Value;
}
public object GetOutputParam(string name)
{
return mCmd.Parameters['#' + name].Value;
}
public void ClearParams()
{
mCmd.Parameters.Clear();
}
public void ExecNonQuery(string cmdText)
{
if(mConn.State==ConnectionState.Closed)
mConn.Open();
mCmd.CommandText = cmdText;
mCmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
public DataSet GetDataSet(string cmdText)
{
mCmd.CommandText = cmdText;
mAdapter.SelectCommand = mCmd;
DataSet ds = new DataSet();
mAdapter.Fill(ds);
return ds;
}
public IDataReader GetDataReader(string cmdText)
{
mCmd.CommandText = cmdText;
if(mConn.State==ConnectionState.Closed)
mConn.Open();
return mCmd.ExecuteReader(CommandBehavior.CloseConnection);
}
public DataTable GetDataTable(string cmdText)
{
return GetDataSet(cmdText).Tables[0];
}
public DataTable GetDataTable(string cmdText,string SQL)
{
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand();
cmd.CommandText = cmdText;
mAdapter.SelectCommand = cmd;
cmd.Connection = mConn;
DataSet ds = new DataSet();
mAdapter.Fill(ds);
return ds.Tables[0];
}
public DataRow GetDataRow(string cmdText)
{
DataTable dt = GetDataTable(cmdText);
DataRow dr;
if(dt.Rows.Count > 0)
dr = dt.Rows[0];
else
dr = null;
return dr;
}
public object GetScalar(string cmdText)
{
mCmd.CommandText = cmdText;
return mCmd.ExecuteScalar();
}
public void SetCommandType(CommandType type)
{
mCmd.CommandType = type;
}
~Database()
{
this.Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
private void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if(!this.disposed)
{
if(disposing)
{
if(mConn.State == ConnectionState.Open)
mConn.Close();
this.mCmd.Dispose();
this.mAdapter.Dispose();
this.mTransaction.Dispose();
}
}
disposed = true;
}
}
Can you help me in figuring out where connection might not be closed in all the cases where this class is being used.

The connection only ever gets closed when disposing the instance of the DataBase class.
However, while this class is implementing the disposable pattern, it doesn't implement the IDisposable interface - so you can't use it in a using statement.
Moreover, you have to rely on whoever is using this class to dispose it.
If they don't, the connection will not get closed until the Finalizer gets called, and that is completely out of the developer's control. It might even not get called at all - as the garbage collector might not need to clear memory during the runtime of whatever application is using this code.
This is why the proper way of handling connections to the database is as a local variable inside a using statement.
What you want to do is create the connection and open it as late as possible, and dispose it as soon as possible.
A proper method for handling calls to the database looks like this:
int ExecuteNonQuery(string sql)
{
using(var con = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
using(var cmd = new SqlCommand(sql, con))
{
con.Open();
return cmd.ExecueNonQuery();
}
}
}
Of course, you would want to add arguments to hold whatever parameters you'll need to pass to the database, and an argument to hold command type, but that should be built on the basis of this structure.
I have a project on GitHub called ADONETHelper (that I've been neglecting for the past year or so due to lack of spare time) that was written in order to reduce the code repetition when using ADO.Net directly.
I've written it a few years back so of course now I have improvements in mind but as I said, I don't have the spare time to work on it - but the general idea is still valid and useful.
Basically, it has a single Execute method that looks like this:
public T Execute<T>(string sql, CommandType commandType, Func<IDbCommand, T> function, params IDbDataParameter[] parameters)
{
using (var con = new TConnection())
{
con.ConnectionString = _ConnectionString;
using (var cmd = new TCommand())
{
cmd.CommandText = sql;
cmd.Connection = con;
cmd.CommandType = commandType;
if (parameters.Length > 0)
{
cmd.Parameters.AddRange(parameters);
}
con.Open();
return function(cmd);
}
}
}
Than I've added a few methods that use this method:
public int ExecuteNonQuery(string sql, CommandType commandType, params IDbDataParameter[] parameters)
{
return Execute<int>(sql, commandType, c => c.ExecuteNonQuery(), parameters);
}
public bool ExecuteReader(string sql, CommandType commandType, Func<IDataReader, bool> populate, params IDbDataParameter[] parameters)
{
return Execute<bool>(sql, commandType, c => populate(c.ExecuteReader()), parameters);
}
and so on.
Feel free to borrow ideas from that project - or even use it as is - I have a few applications using this and they run very well for quite some time now.

You aren't implementing the disposable pattern via the IDisposable interface, you just have a Dispose method, in turn you would not be able to call this in a using statement.
public class Database : IDisposable { ... }
This is all a bit suspect: I mean, if you are already using it you aren't using this in a using statement and trying to cache the connection seemingly. I would shy away from this altogether.
Also you have a Destructor, however its usage is wrong 99% of times.

While a persistence layer makes perfectly sense, you have to design it differently. What you do is pack some complexity into methods which still do the same, such as ChangeParam() or GetDataReader().
Normally, you have repositories which have knowledge about the underlying technicalities and remove that kind of complexity, such as GetAllCustomers() (with emphasis on the domain term customer).
When you have say 4 or 5 such repositories, then you start refactoring by abstracting complexity into a parent class. By doing so, you're packing the complexity such as in GetDataReader() and promote it from the repositories into an abstract repository that sits on top of it.
By starting from where you started you'll get just another layer which does not abstract nearly as much and has too much, often unnecessary, functionality.
If it were that easy, the ADO.NET API would already have it removed in the first place.
Another thing you should do is look at this simple but ever-recurring code snippet. It distillates some core concepts about IDisposable and using(){}. You'll always encounter it in correct code:
string sql = "SELECT * FROM t";
using (SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(sql, con))
{
SqlDataReader reader;
con.Open();
reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
while (reader.Read())
{
// TODO: consume data
}
reader.Close();
}
This is the stuff I'd expect to see in a persistence layer, and the consume data part is actually the most important, because it is domain-dependent. The rest is just boilerplate code with little interest.

Different database types in .net app [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Data Access Layer design patterns
(7 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm writing an 'off-the shelf' desktop app in C# that needs to connect to one of three different types of database (SQL Server, MySQL or SQL Server Compact) depending on the version and customer requirements.
I have been using ADO code as follows:
using (SqlConnection conn = MSSQLHelpers.GetConnection())
{
using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand())
{
cmd.Connection = conn;
cmd.CommandType = CommandType.Text;
cmd.CommandText = "SELECT * FROM settings WHERE ID=#ID";
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("#ID", 1);
using (SqlDataReader rdr = MSSQLHelpers.GetDataReader(cmd))
{
if (rdr.Read())
{
Config.AdvancedSecurity = rdr.GetBoolean(rdr.GetOrdinal("advancedsecurity"));
Config.BookSampleInOnCreate = rdr.GetBoolean(rdr.GetOrdinal("newsamplein"));
etc....
}
rdr.Close();
}
}
conn.Close();
}
This is obviously specific to SQL Server. My question is what would be the best way to avoid repeating all the above for each of the three database types using MySqlConnection, SqlCeConnection etc?
Many thanks in advance for any help.
Jon

I have actually done similar, and I did with a hierarchy class structure using the INTERFACES. For example, if you look at SqlConnection, you be declared as inclusive of the "IDbConnection" interface. Likewise SqlCommand would include "IDbCommand", SqlDataAdapter uses "IDbDataAdapter" and similar for parameters and the like.
So, I had a parent class that was like a template that all would have (almost an abstract class), but since I had common stuff regardless of which connection type, it was actually a function class too.
public class MyDBHandler
{
public virtual IDbConnection GetConnection()
{ throw new Exception( "Please define specific GetConnection method"}; }
public virtual IDbCommand GetCommand()
{ throw new Exception( "Please define specific GetCommand method"}; }
public virtual IDbDataAdapter GetDataAdapter()
{ throw new Exception( "Please define specific DataAdapter method"}; }
public virtual string GetConnectionString()
{ throw new Exception( "Please define specific ConnectionString method"}; }
etc...
// Then some common properties you might want for connection path, server, user, pwd
protected string whatServer;
protected string whatPath;
protected string whatUser;
protected string whatPwd;
protected connectionHandle;
public MyDBHandler()
{
// always start with HAVING a connection object, regardless of actual connection or not.
connectionHandle = GetConnection();
}
// common function to try opening corresponding connection regardless of which server type
public bool TryConnect()
{
if( connectionHandle.State != System.Data.ConnectionState.Open )
try
{
connectionHandle.ConnectionString = GetConnectionString();
connectionHandle.Open();
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
// notify user or other handling
}
if( connectionHandle.State != System.Data.ConnectionState.Open )
MessageBox.Show( "Some message to user." );
// return true only if state is open
return connectionHandle.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Open;
}
// Now, similar to try executing a command as long as it is of IDbCommand interface to work with
public bool TryExec( IDbCommand whatCmd, DataTable putResultsHere )
{
// if can't connect, get out
if( ! TryConnect() )
return false;
bool sqlCallOk = false;
if( putResultsHere == null )
putResultsHere = new DataTable();
try
{
da.Fill(oTblResults, putResultsHere);
// we got this far without problem, it was ok, regardless of actually returning valid data
sqlCallOk = true;
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
// Notify user of error
}
return sqlCallOk;
}
}
public class SQLHandler : MyDbHandler
{
public override IDbConnection GetConnection()
{ return (IDbConnection) new SqlConnection(); }
public override IDbCommand GetCommand()
{ return (IDbCommand) new SqlCommand("", connectionHandle ); }
public override IDbDataAdapter GetDataAdapter()
{ return (IDbDataAdapter) new SqlDataAdapter(); }
public override string GetConnectionString()
{ return "Driver={SQL Server}; blah, blah of properties"; }
}
public class MySQLHandler : MyDbHandler
{
public override IDbConnection GetConnection()
{ return (IDbConnection) new MySqlConnection(); }
public override IDbCommand GetCommand()
{ return (IDbCommand) new MySqlCommand("", connectionHandle ); }
public override IDbDataAdapter GetDataAdapter()
{ return (IDbDataAdapter) new MySqlDataAdapter(); }
public override string GetConnectionString()
{ return "Driver={MySql}; blah, blah of properties"; }
}
Then, in your code, depending on how you want to handle, you could do
MyDbHandler whichDatabase = new SQLHandler();
// set any settings for such connection and such...
IDbCommand cmd = whichDatabase.GetCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "select * from whereEver";
DataTable oTmp = new DataTable()
whichDatabase.TryExec( cmd, oTmp );
Now you have a table returned, and populated with rows/columns from the query as needed, close connection in the TryExec() call, or however you find fit.
Just an stripped-down version of something I did in the past.
If you want to swap between MySql, Sql-Server, Access, Visual FoxPro, etc create corresponding handlers.

What to put into my Class's Dispose method

I am writing my own data access layer class for the first time so I would like to wrap it inside a (using) parenthesis but that requires the class to implement Idisposable.
The only thing I put in there is
conn.close()
is there something else missing that i should be adding there?
class overview:
public class DAL : IDisposable
{
SqlConnection conn;
SqlCommand cmd;
SqlTransaction transaction;
public int Status = 1;
public DAL()
{
conn = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["MyDB"].ConnectionString);
conn.Open();
}
public void InsertRequest(UserAndRequestInfo UInfo, UserCrops UCrop)
{
}
public void InsertBGs(BreedingGroups BG)
{
}
public void EndTransaction()
{
if (Status == 1)
transaction.Commit();
if (Status < 0)
transaction.Rollback();
}
public void EndConnection()
{
conn.Close();
}
void Dispose()
{
conn.Close();
}
called from:
using (DAL db = new DAL())
{
foreach (var crop in UInfo.UserCropInfo)
{
db.InsertRequest(UInfo, crop);
foreach (BreedingGroups bg in crop.BGs)
{
db.InsertBGs(bg);
}
db.EndTransaction();
}
db.EndConnection(); <---- //If 'using' is there I'll remove this line
}
Also, in this particular case, wouldn't be just better to call an db.EndConnection() method

Yes: Call Dispose() on any disposable variables in your class.
void Dispose()
{
if(cmd != null)
cmd.Dispose();
if(transaction != null)
transaction.Dispose();
if(conn != null)
conn.Dispose();
}
edit: conn.Dispose() will also call conn.Close() so you shouldn't need to also call close it if you call dispose.

This is just a choich for you, to use the using scope in InsertRequest method instead as the following:
public class DAL
{
public void InsertRequest(UserAndRequestInfo UInfo, UserCrops UCrop)
{
using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["MyDB"].ConnectionString))
{
conn.Open();
SqlCommand command = conn.CreateCommand();
SqlTransaction transaction;
// Start a local transaction.
transaction = conn.BeginTransaction("SampleTransaction");
command.Connection = conn;
command.Transaction = transaction;
try
{
command.CommandText = "Insert into ...";
command.ExecuteNonQuery();
command.CommandText = "Insert into ...";
command.ExecuteNonQuery();
// Attempt to commit the transaction.
transaction.Commit();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Attempt to roll back the transaction.
try
{
transaction.Rollback();
}
catch (Exception ex2)
{
Console.WriteLine("Rollback Exception Type: {0}", ex2.GetType());
Console.WriteLine(" Message: {0}", ex2.Message);
}
}
}
}
public void InsertBGs(BreedingGroups BG)
{
}
}
Note that you don't need to make database connection in Constructure, remove it out.
And use the same concept to implement InsertBGs method.
This is form to call the
DAL db = new DAL();
foreach (var crop in UInfo.UserCropInfo)
{
db.InsertRequest(UInfo, crop);
foreach (BreedingGroups bg in crop.BGs)
{
db.InsertBGs(bg);
}
}

saving object to database c#

I'm having class Report and class Program, what I want to accomplish (no luck so far) is to send data from class Program and method SaveRep() to class Report method Save() and save it in this method.
I apologize if the question is badly formulated, I am really stuck at this, please help. Thanks
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.IO;
using System.Configuration;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace Application
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//call method SaveRep
}
public void SaveRep(...)
{
int RepID = 1;
string Data1 = "SomeData1"
string Data2 = "SomeData2"
//This method should send the data above to method Save() in Report class
//data to this method will be provided from another method.
}
}
public class Report
{
private static int _repID;
public int RepID
{
get { return _repID; }
set { _repID = value; }
}
private static string _data1;
public string Data1
{
get { return _data1; }
set { _data1 = value; }
}
private static string __data2;
public string Data1
{
get { return _data2; }
set { _data2 = value; }
}
public void Save()
{
string strConnectionString = (#"server=(local)\sqlexpress;Integrated Security=True;database=DataBase");
SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(strConnectionString);
connection.Open();
// This method should save all data (RepID,Data1,Data2)
// to the DB, provided to her by SaveRep method from Program class.
// Properties are columns from a database
}
}
}

public void Save()
{
string yourConnString="Replace with Your Database ConnectionString";
using(SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(yourConnString))
{
string sqlStatement = "INSERT Table1(Data1) VALUES(#Data1)";
using(SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(sqlStatement, connection))
{
cmd.CommandType = CommandType.Text;
cmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("#Data1",Data1);
//add more parameters as needed and update insert query
try
{
connection.Open();
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//log error
}
}
}
}
Assuming your Data1 is the name of your Column name. Update the sqlStatement to have your relevant columns.
Now in SaveRep, you can call it like
public void SaveRep()
{
Report objReport=new Report();
objReport.Data1="Something somethinng";
objReport.Save();
}

string connectionString = ....; //adjust your connection string
string queryString = "INSERT INTO ....;"; //Adjust your query
using (SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(
connectionString))
{
using( SqlCommand command = new SqlCommand(
queryString, connection))
{
connection.Open();
command .ExecuteNonQuery();
}
}

One tiny thing that the previous speakers have not noticed, is that your Report class is severely broken. Why did you use static keywords on the variables? Do not do that! Well, unless you know what it does, and here I have the feeling you don't. Update your Report class to look like this:
public class Report
{
public int RepID {get;set;}
public string Data1 {get;set;}
public string Data2 {get;set;}
public void Save()
{
// what others said
}
}
'static' in your original code makes all te variables global/shared. That means that if you'd create 500 Report objects with new, they all would have the same one ID, Data1 and Data2. Any change to any single of those 500 objects would cause all the objects to change. But it's be misleading, the objects would not change. They would simply have the same data. Looking at the "ID" field, I think you'd rather want a separate objects with separate data for separate records..