Application Controller and Application.Run() - Stop Program When UI Ends - c#

I have an application controller with navigation workflow like so:
namespace Ordering.UI.Workflow
{
public static class ApplicationController
{
private static INavigationWorkflow instance;
private static string navigationArgument;
public static void Register(INavigationWorkflow service)
{
if (service == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException();
instance = service;
}
public static void NavigateTo(string view)
{
if (instance == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
instance.NavigateTo(view, Argument);
}
public static void NavigateTo(string view, string argument)
{
if (instance == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
navigationArgument = argument;
NavigateTo(view);
}
public static string Argument
{
get
{
return navigationArgument;
}
}
}
}
NavigationWorkflow Class:
namespace Ordering.UI.Workflow
{
public interface INavigationWorkflow
{
void NavigateTo(string uri, string argument);
}
public class NavigationWorkflow : INavigationWorkflow
{
Form _mainForm;
ProductScreen productScreen;
public NavigationWorkflow() { }
public NavigationWorkflow(Form mainForm)
{
_mainForm = mainForm;
}
public void NavigateTo(string view, string argument)
{
switch (view)
{
case "products":
if (productScreen != null && !productScreen.IsDisposed)
{
productScreen.Close();
productScreen = null;
}
if (productScreen == null && productScreen.IsDisposed)
{
productScreen = new ProductScreen();
}
productScreen.Show();
break;
}
}
}
}
and in my Program.cs, I want to do this:
OrderScreen orderScreen = new OrderScreen();
orderScreen.Show();
NavigationWorkflow workflow = new NavigationWorkflow(orderScreen);
ApplicationController.Register(workflow);
Application.Run();
But whenever my main form (OrderScreen) closes, the main application continues to run. How can I register my closing event with the Application.Run()? Do I have to create my own ApplicationContext? Is there some way to automatically do this?

Application.Run() automatically creates an ApplicationContext. You can get a reference to it with the Application.ApplicationContext property. Call its ExitThread() method to force the message loop to terminate.
Creating your own and passing it to Run() is also possible, no real advantage that I can think of. Other than it serving as a base class for your controller. The Run() method call logically belongs in your controller as well.

Related

Is it possible to have a singleton exist accross different projects within a solution?

I am attempting to communicate information between two different projects. One is a remoting server and the other a WPF application. I have created a singleton class but have noticed that each time one project calls the GetInstance method it creates a new instance of the singleton. Is it possible to have a singleton accross projects as it doesn't seem it is and if that is the case, why is that?
Below is my code for the singleton
public class CommunicationSingleton
{
private int jobCount = 0;
private Job jobInProgress;
private List<Job> jobs = new List<Job>();
private static CommunicationSingleton instance = new CommunicationSingleton();
static readonly object obj = new object();
private CommunicationSingleton() { }
public static CommunicationSingleton GetInstance()
{
lock (obj)
{
if (instance == null)
{
return instance = new CommunicationSingleton();
}
else
{
return instance;
}
}
}
public void AddJob(Job job)
{
jobs.Add(job);
}
public List<Job> GetJobs()
{
return jobs;
}
public void IncreaseJobCount(int jobCount)
{
this.jobCount += jobCount;
}
public int GetJobCount()
{
return jobCount;
}
public void JobInProgress(Job jobInProgress)
{
this.jobInProgress = jobInProgress;
}
public Job GetJobInProgress()
{
return jobInProgress;
}
}

Item enqueue in concurrent queue is not adding

I am working on an application in which I am getting orders from an third party app. The application is written on windows form so I am using service stack to add routes in my application.
I have three classes. One contains endpoint
public class Service : ServiceStack.Service
{
Repository _repository;
public OrderService()
{
_repository = Repository.GetInstance();
}
[Authenticate]
public void Post(Order order)
{
if (order != null)
{
_repository.AddItem(order);
}
}
}
The second class is processing the orders and this class is a singleton class.
public sealed class Repository
{
private static object _myLock = new object();
private static Repository _mySingleton = null;
private ConcurrentQueue<Order> _queue;
public static bool orderCheck = true;
private Repository() {
_queue = new ConcurrentQueue<Order>();
}
public void AddItem(Order order)
{
_queue.Enqueue(order);
}
public static Repository GetInstance()
{
if (_mySingleton == null)
{
lock (_myLock)
{
if (_mySingleton == null)
{
_mySingleton = new Repository();
}
}
}
return _mySingleton;
}
public void CreateOrder()
{
while (orderCheck)
{
Order order = null;
_queue.TryDequeue(out order);
if (order != null)
{
try
{
// performing business logic with order
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception(ex.Message);
}
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}
}
}
The third class creates a new thread when the application is started:
new Thread(delegate ()
{
var repo = Repository.GetInstance();
repo.CreateOrder();
}).Start();
The problem is that the endpoint added the order information in the queue, but when I try to dequeue in the Repository class then it's not available on the tryDequeue method.
I put the getHashCode of ConcurrentQueue and I found the hashcode showing differently in while loop and in AddItem method.

Ninject how to avoid array injection for multiple name bindings

Review the following code, where to take care of cases with both single and named binding for an interface, an abstract factory is used as suggested here
Parameterized Factories Using Ninject
Challenge here is, I need to introduce IEnumerable<T> bankingOperationList, instead of T bankingOperationList, since for named binding it will always use the abstract factory injection, Func<string,T> bankingOperationFunc, but if I don't use IEnumerable<T> suggested above it leads to exception, due to this for even non named single binding, I need to use something like:
bankingOperationList.FirstOrDefault().Withdraw(), even when I know there will only be one dependency.
Another challenge is, for some named bindings it has 30 - 40 bindings in few cases, which will be unnecessarily filled, when I can default T bankingOperationList to null, as it is not required. Please let me know, if the issue needs further clarification. Working Console project underneath.
public interface IBankingOperation
{
void Withdraw();
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>()
.Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationTwo>()
.Named("B");
Bind<Func<string,IBankingOperation>>().ToMethod(ctx => name => ctx.Kernel.Get<IBankingOperation>(name));
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : IBankingOperation
{
private IEnumerable<T> bankingOperationList = null;
private Func<string,T> bankingOperationFunc;
public BankTran(IEnumerable<T> boList = null,
Func<string,T> boFunc = null)
{
bankingOperationList = boList;
bankingOperationFunc = boFunc;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if(bankingOperationFunc != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
else
bankingOperationList.FirstOrDefault().Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<IBankingOperation>>();
transaction.DoOperation("A");
}
}
Edit 1, based on response by jbl
public interface IBankingOperation<T>
{
void Withdraw();
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation<TestOne>
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation<TestTwo>
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
public class TestOne { }
public class TestTwo { }
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("B");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<TestOne>));
Bind<Func<string, IBankingOperation<TestOne>>>().ToMethod(ctx => name => ctx.Kernel.Get<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>(name));
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestTwo>>().To<BankingOperationTwo>();
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : class
{
private IBankingOperation<T> bankingOperation;
private Func<string, IBankingOperation<T>> bankingOperationFunc;
public BankTran(IBankingOperation<T> bo = null,
Func<string, IBankingOperation<T>> boFunc = null)
{
bankingOperation = bo;
bankingOperationFunc = boFunc;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if (bankingOperationFunc != null && identifier != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
else if (bankingOperation != null)
bankingOperation.Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel(new NinjectSettings { AllowNullInjection = true});
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>("A"); // Not Working
// var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>(); // Working
transaction.DoOperation();
}
}
Assuming BankingOperationOne is your default behaviour,
adding the following line in your Load method should allow to replace the IEnumerable<T> with T in your BankTran constructor :
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<>));
Another solution would be to just define a named binding for default behaviour
Bind<IBankingOperation>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("__DefaultBehaviour");
then
public void DoOperation(string identifier = "__DefaultBehaviour")
{
if (bankingOperationFunc != null)
bankingOperationFunc(identifier).Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
Edit :
You should use the Ninject.Extenstions.Factory nuget package.
Using this package, the following code seems to fullfill you requirements.
public interface IBankingOperation<T>
{
void Withdraw();
}
public interface IBankingOperationFactory<T>
{
IBankingOperation<T> GetBankingOperation(string name);
}
public class BankingOperationOne : IBankingOperation<TestOne>
{
public BankingOperationOne()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: One :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation One");
}
}
public class BankingOperationTwo : IBankingOperation<TestTwo>
{
public BankingOperationTwo()
{
Console.WriteLine("Testing Constructor :: Two :: Empty");
}
public void Withdraw()
{
Console.WriteLine("Money Withdrawl Operation Two");
}
}
public class TestOne { }
public class TestTwo { }
// Ninject Bindings
public class Bindings : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("A");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().Named("B");
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>().To<BankingOperationOne>().WhenInjectedInto(typeof(BankTran<TestOne>));
Bind<IBankingOperationFactory<IBankingOperation<TestOne>>>().ToFactory();
Bind<IBankingOperation<TestTwo>>().To<BankingOperationTwo>();
}
}
public class BankTran<T> where T : class
{
private IBankingOperation<T> bankingOperation;
private IBankingOperationFactory<T> _bankingOperationFactory;
public BankTran(IBankingOperation<T> bo = null,
IBankingOperationFactory<T> bankingOperationFactory = null)
{
bankingOperation = bo;
_bankingOperationFactory = bankingOperationFactory;
}
public void DoOperation(string identifier = null)
{
if (_bankingOperationFactory != null && identifier != null)
_bankingOperationFactory.GetBankingOperation(identifier).Withdraw();
else if (bankingOperation != null)
bankingOperation.Withdraw();
Console.WriteLine("Transaction Successful ");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel(new NinjectSettings { AllowNullInjection = true });
kernel.Load(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly()); // Load from Bindings (derived from NinjectModule)
var transaction = kernel.Get<BankTran<TestOne>>();
transaction.DoOperation();
transaction.DoOperation("A");
transaction.DoOperation("B");
}
}

ContextBoundObject Throws a Remoting Error After Await

I have some logging code that was written to intercept method calls using ContextBoundObject s and a ContextAttribute. The code is based on a Code Project sample.
This all worked fine until we started using this library with code that leverages async and await. Now we get remoting errors when running the code. Here is a simple example that reproduces the issue:
public class OhMyAttribute : ContextAttribute
{
public OhMyAttribute() : base("OhMy")
{
}
}
[OhMy]
public class Class1 : ContextBoundObject
{
private string one = "1";
public async Task Method1()
{
Console.WriteLine(one);
await Task.Delay(50);
Console.WriteLine(one);
}
}
When we invoke Method1 we get the following RemotingException on the second Console.WriteLine:
Remoting cannot find field 'one' on type 'WindowsFormsApplication1.Class1'.
Is there any way to get around this problem using built in C# methods or do we have to look at an alternative solution like PostSharp?
Short answer: Remoting calls do not work on private fields. The async/await rewriting causes an attempt to make a remoting call on a private field.
The issue can be reproduced without async/await. And demonstrating it this way is helpful in understanding what is going on in the async/await case:
[OhMy]
public class Class2 : ContextBoundObject
{
private string one = "1";
public void Method1()
{
var nc = new NestedClass(this);
}
public class NestedClass
{
public NestedClass(Class2 c2)
{
Console.WriteLine(c2.one); // Note: nested classes are allowed access to outer classes privates
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var c2 = new Class2();
// This call causes no problems:
c2.Method1();
// This, however, causes the issue.
var nc = new Class2.NestedClass(c2);
}
Let's walk through what happens line by line:
In Main, we start out in Context0
Since Class2 is a ContextBoundObject and since the OhMyAttribute considers the current context unacceptable, an instance of Class2 is created in Context1 (I'll call this c2_real, and what is returned and stored in c2 is a remoting proxy to c2_real.
When c2.Method1() is called, it is called on the remote proxy. Since we are in Context0, the remote proxy realizes it is not in the correct context so it switches to Context1, and the code within Method1 is executed.
3.a Within Method1 we call the NestedClass constructor which uses c2.one. In this case, we are already in Context1, so the c2.one requires no context switches and so we are using the c2_real object directly.
Now, the problematic case:
We create a new NestedClass passing in the remote proxy c2. No context switches occur here because NestedClass is not a ContextBoundObject.
Within the NestedClass ctor, it access c2.one. The remote proxy notices that we are still in Context0, and so it attempts to remote this call to Context1. This fails because c2.one is a private field. You'll see in Object.GetFieldInfo it is only looking for Public fields:
private FieldInfo GetFieldInfo(String typeName, String fieldName)
{
// ...
FieldInfo fldInfo = t.GetField(fieldName, BindingFlags.Public |
BindingFlags.Instance |
BindingFlags.IgnoreCase);
if(null == fldInfo)
{
#if FEATURE_REMOTING
throw new RemotingException(String.Format(
CultureInfo.CurrentCulture, Environment.GetResourceString("Remoting_BadField"),
fieldName, typeName));
// ...
}
return fldInfo;
}
So, How does async/await end up causing this same issue?
The async/await causes your Class1 to get rewritten such that it uses a nested class with a state machine (used ILSpy to generate):
public class Class1 : ContextBoundObject
{
// ...
private struct <Method1>d__0 : IAsyncStateMachine
{
public int <>1__state;
public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder <>t__builder;
public Class1 <>4__this;
private TaskAwaiter <>u__$awaiter1;
private object <>t__stack;
void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext()
{
try
{
int num = this.<>1__state;
if (num != -3)
{
TaskAwaiter taskAwaiter;
if (num != 0)
{
Console.WriteLine(this.<>4__this.one);
taskAwaiter = Task.Delay(50).GetAwaiter();
if (!taskAwaiter.IsCompleted)
{
this.<>1__state = 0;
this.<>u__$awaiter1 = taskAwaiter;
this.<>t__builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted<TaskAwaiter, Class1.<Method1>d__0>(ref taskAwaiter, ref this);
return;
}
}
else
{
taskAwaiter = this.<>u__$awaiter1;
this.<>u__$awaiter1 = default(TaskAwaiter);
this.<>1__state = -1;
}
taskAwaiter.GetResult();
taskAwaiter = default(TaskAwaiter);
Console.WriteLine(this.<>4__this.one);
}
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
this.<>1__state = -2;
this.<>t__builder.SetException(exception);
return;
}
this.<>1__state = -2;
this.<>t__builder.SetResult();
}
// ...
}
private string one = "1";
public Task Method1()
{
Class1.<Method1>d__0 <Method1>d__;
<Method1>d__.<>4__this = this;
<Method1>d__.<>t__builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder.Create();
<Method1>d__.<>1__state = -1;
AsyncTaskMethodBuilder <>t__builder = <Method1>d__.<>t__builder;
<>t__builder.Start<Class1.<Method1>d__0>(ref <Method1>d__);
return <Method1>d__.<>t__builder.Task;
}
}
The important thing to notice is that
It's created a nested structure which has access to the privates of Class1
The this variable is lifted and stored in the nested class.
So, what happens here is that
On the initial call to c1.Method1() the remoting proxy notices we are in Context0, and that it needs to switch to Context1.
Eventually, MoveNext is called, and c1.one is called. Since we are already in Context1, no context switch is necessary (so the issue doesn't occur).
Later, since a continuation was registered, a call to MoveNext will occur again to execute the rest of the code after the await. However, this call to MoveNext will not occur inside a call to one of Class1's methods. Thus, when the code c1.one is executed this time, we will be in Context0. The remoting proxy notices we are in Context0, and attempts a context switch. This causes the same failure as above since c1.one is a private field.
Workaround:
I'm not sure of a general workaround, but for this specific case you can work around the issue by not using the this reference in the method. I.e.:
public async Task Method1()
{
var temp = one;
Console.WriteLine(temp);
await Task.Delay(50);
Console.WriteLine(temp);
}
Or switch to using a private property instead of a field.
Here is a more general workaround.
It has the following deficiencies:
It does not support changing the SynchronizationContext within the ContextBoundObject. It will throw in that case.
It does not support the case of using await when SynchronizationContext.Current is null and the TaskScheduler.Current is not the TaskScheduler.Default. In this scenario, normally await would capture the TaskScheduler and use that to post the remainder of the work, but since this solution sets the SynchronizationContext the TaskScheduler would not be captured. Thus, when this situation is detected, it will throw.
It does not support using .ConfigureAwait(false) since that will cause the SynchronizationContext to not be captured. Unfortunately, I could not detect this case. However, if the user does want to get .ConfigureAwait(false) like behavior for the underlying pass-through SynchronizationContext, they can use a custom awaiter (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/22417031/495262).
One interesting thing here is that I've attempted to create a "pass through" SynchronizationContext. That is, I didn't want to overwrite any existing SynchronizationContext, but rather retain its behavior and layer on top of it the behavior of doing the work in the proper context. Any comments on a better approach are welcome.
using System;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Activation;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Contexts;
using System.Runtime.Remoting.Messaging;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var c1 = new Class1();
var t = c1.Method1();
Func<Task> f = c1.Method1;
f.BeginInvoke(null, null);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
[MyContext]
public class Class1 : ContextBoundObject
{
private string one = "1";
public async Task Method1()
{
Console.WriteLine(one);
await Task.Delay(50);
Console.WriteLine(one);
}
}
sealed class MyContextAttribute : ContextAttribute
{
public MyContextAttribute()
: base("My")
{
}
public override void GetPropertiesForNewContext(IConstructionCallMessage ctorMsg)
{
if (ctorMsg == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ctorMsg");
ctorMsg.ContextProperties.Add(new ContributeInstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink());
}
public override bool IsContextOK(Context ctx, IConstructionCallMessage ctorMsg)
{
return false;
}
}
sealed class ContributeInstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink : IContextProperty, IContributeServerContextSink
{
public ContributeInstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink()
{
}
public IMessageSink GetServerContextSink(IMessageSink nextSink)
{
return new InstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink(nextSink);
}
public string Name { get { return "ContributeInstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink"; } }
public bool IsNewContextOK(Context ctx)
{
return true;
}
public void Freeze(Context ctx)
{
}
}
sealed class InstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink : IMessageSink
{
readonly IMessageSink m_NextSink;
public InstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink(IMessageSink nextSink)
{
m_NextSink = nextSink;
}
public IMessageSink NextSink
{
get { return m_NextSink; }
}
public IMessageCtrl AsyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg, IMessageSink replySink)
{
var contextSyncContext = new ContextSynchronizationContext(SynchronizationContext.Current);
var syncContextReplacer = new SynchronizationContextReplacer(contextSyncContext);
DelegateMessageSink.SyncProcessMessageDelegate replySyncDelegate = (n, m) => SyncProcessMessageDelegateForAsyncReply(n, m, syncContextReplacer);
var newReplySink = new DelegateMessageSink(replySink, replySyncDelegate, null);
return m_NextSink.AsyncProcessMessage(msg, newReplySink);
}
public IMessage SyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg)
{
var contextSyncContext = new ContextSynchronizationContext(SynchronizationContext.Current);
using (new SynchronizationContextReplacer(contextSyncContext))
{
var ret = m_NextSink.SyncProcessMessage(msg);
return ret;
}
}
private IMessage SyncProcessMessageDelegateForAsyncReply(IMessageSink nextSink, IMessage msg, SynchronizationContextReplacer syncContextReplacer)
{
syncContextReplacer.Dispose();
return nextSink.SyncProcessMessage(msg);
}
private void PreChecks()
{
if (SynchronizationContext.Current != null)
return;
if (TaskScheduler.Current != TaskScheduler.Default)
throw new InvalidOperationException("InstallContextSynchronizationContextMessageSink does not support calling methods with SynchronizationContext.Current as null while Taskscheduler.Current is not TaskScheduler.Default");
}
}
sealed class SynchronizationContextReplacer : IDisposable
{
SynchronizationContext m_original;
SynchronizationContext m_new;
public SynchronizationContextReplacer(SynchronizationContext syncContext)
{
m_original = SynchronizationContext.Current;
m_new = syncContext;
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(m_new);
}
public void Dispose()
{
// We don't expect the SynchronizationContext to be changed during the lifetime of the SynchronizationContextReplacer
if (SynchronizationContext.Current != m_new)
throw new InvalidOperationException("SynchronizationContext was changed unexpectedly.");
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(m_original);
}
}
sealed class ContextSynchronizationContext : PassThroughSynchronizationConext
{
readonly Context m_context;
private ContextSynchronizationContext(SynchronizationContext passThroughSyncContext, Context ctx)
: base(passThroughSyncContext)
{
if (ctx == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("ctx");
m_context = ctx;
}
public ContextSynchronizationContext(SynchronizationContext passThroughSyncContext)
: this(passThroughSyncContext, Thread.CurrentContext)
{
}
protected override SynchronizationContext CreateCopy(SynchronizationContext copiedPassThroughSyncContext)
{
return new ContextSynchronizationContext(copiedPassThroughSyncContext, m_context);
}
protected override void CreateSendOrPostCallback(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
CrossContextDelegate ccd = () => d(state);
m_context.DoCallBack(ccd);
}
}
abstract class PassThroughSynchronizationConext : SynchronizationContext
{
readonly SynchronizationContext m_passThroughSyncContext;
protected PassThroughSynchronizationConext(SynchronizationContext passThroughSyncContext)
: base()
{
m_passThroughSyncContext = passThroughSyncContext;
}
protected abstract void CreateSendOrPostCallback(SendOrPostCallback d, object state);
protected abstract SynchronizationContext CreateCopy(SynchronizationContext copiedPassThroughSyncContext);
public sealed override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
var d2 = CreateSendOrPostCallback(d);
if (m_passThroughSyncContext != null)
m_passThroughSyncContext.Post(d2, state);
else
base.Post(d2, state);
}
public sealed override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
var d2 = CreateSendOrPostCallback(d);
if (m_passThroughSyncContext != null)
m_passThroughSyncContext.Send(d2, state);
else
base.Send(d2, state);
}
public sealed override SynchronizationContext CreateCopy()
{
var copiedSyncCtx = m_passThroughSyncContext != null ? m_passThroughSyncContext.CreateCopy() : null;
return CreateCopy(copiedSyncCtx);
}
public sealed override void OperationCompleted()
{
if (m_passThroughSyncContext != null)
m_passThroughSyncContext.OperationCompleted();
else
base.OperationCompleted();
}
public sealed override void OperationStarted()
{
if (m_passThroughSyncContext != null)
m_passThroughSyncContext.OperationStarted();
else
base.OperationStarted();
}
public sealed override int Wait(IntPtr[] waitHandles, bool waitAll, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
return m_passThroughSyncContext != null ?
m_passThroughSyncContext.Wait(waitHandles, waitAll, millisecondsTimeout) :
base.Wait(waitHandles, waitAll, millisecondsTimeout);
}
private SendOrPostCallback CreateSendOrPostCallback(SendOrPostCallback d)
{
SendOrPostCallback sopc = s => CreateSendOrPostCallback(d, s);
return sopc;
}
}
sealed class DelegateMessageSink : IMessageSink
{
public delegate IMessage SyncProcessMessageDelegate(IMessageSink nextSink, IMessage msg);
public delegate IMessageCtrl AsyncProcessMessageDelegate(IMessageSink nextSink, IMessage msg, IMessageSink replySink);
readonly IMessageSink m_NextSink;
readonly SyncProcessMessageDelegate m_syncProcessMessageDelegate;
readonly AsyncProcessMessageDelegate m_asyncProcessMessageDelegate;
public DelegateMessageSink(IMessageSink nextSink, SyncProcessMessageDelegate syncProcessMessageDelegate, AsyncProcessMessageDelegate asyncProcessMessageDelegate)
{
m_NextSink = nextSink;
m_syncProcessMessageDelegate = syncProcessMessageDelegate;
m_asyncProcessMessageDelegate = asyncProcessMessageDelegate;
}
public IMessageCtrl AsyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg, IMessageSink replySink)
{
return (m_asyncProcessMessageDelegate != null) ?
m_asyncProcessMessageDelegate(m_NextSink, msg, replySink) :
m_NextSink.AsyncProcessMessage(msg, replySink);
}
public IMessageSink NextSink
{
get { return m_NextSink; }
}
public IMessage SyncProcessMessage(IMessage msg)
{
return (m_syncProcessMessageDelegate != null) ?
m_syncProcessMessageDelegate(m_NextSink, msg) :
m_NextSink.SyncProcessMessage(msg);
}
}
}

Modify existing WCF communication object

This is how I used to make method calls:
SvcHelper.Using<SomeWebServiceClient>(proxy =>
{
proxy.SomeMethod();
}
public class SvcHelper
{
public static void Using<TClient>(Action<TClient> action) where TClient : ICommunicationObject, IDisposable, new()
{
}
}
This is how I make method calls:
ChannelFactory<ISomethingWebService> cnFactory = new ChannelFactory<ISomethingWebService>("SomethingWebService");
ISomethingWebService client = cnFactory.CreateChannel();
using (new OperationContextScope((IContextChannel)client))
{
client.SomeMethod();
}
My question is: Instead of replacing every instance of my original method call approach; Is there a way to modify my SvcHelper and do the creation of the channel in the SvcHelper constructor and then simply pass the interface like the following:
SvcHelper.Using<ISomethingWebService>(client =>
{
client.SomeMethod();
}
Hope this makes sense and thanks in advance.
First, you don't want to create a new ChannelFactory<T> every call to the Using helper method. They are the most costly thing to construct in the WCF universe. So, at bare minimum, you will want to use a caching approach there.
Second, you don't want to tie yourself to "client" types at all anymore. Just work straight with the service contract interfaces.
Starting from what you've got, here's where I'd go based on how I've done this in the past:
public class SvcHelper
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<ChannelFactoryCacheKey, ChannelFactory> ChannelFactories = new ConcurrentDictionary<ChannelFactoryCacheKey, ChannelFactory>();
public static void Using<TServiceContract>(Action<TServiceContract> action) where TServiceContract : class
{
SvcHelper.Using<TServiceContract>(action, "*");
}
public static void Using<TServiceContract>(Action<TServiceContract> action, string endpointConfigurationName) where TServiceContract : class
{
ChannelFactoryCacheKey cacheKey = new ChannelFactoryCacheKey(typeof(TServiceContract), endpointConfigurationName);
ChannelFactory<TServiceContract> channelFactory = (ChannelFactory<TServiceContract>)SvcHelper.ChannelFactories.GetOrAdd(
cacheKey,
missingCacheKey => new ChannelFactory<TServiceContract>(missingCacheKey.EndpointConfigurationName));
TServiceContract typedChannel = channelFactory.CreateChannel();
IClientChannel clientChannel = (IClientChannel)typedChannel;
try
{
using(new OperationContextScope((IContextChannel)typedChannel))
{
action(typedChannel);
}
}
finally
{
try
{
clientChannel.Close();
}
catch
{
clientChannel.Abort();
}
}
}
private sealed class ChannelFactoryCacheKey : IEquatable<ChannelFactoryCacheKey>
{
public ChannelFactoryCacheKey(Type channelType, string endpointConfigurationName)
{
this.channelType = channelType;
this.endpointConfigurationName = endpointConfigurationName;
}
private Type channelType;
public Type ChannelType
{
get
{
return this.channelType;
}
}
private string endpointConfigurationName;
public string EndpointConfigurationName
{
get
{
return this.endpointConfigurationName;
}
}
public bool Equals(ChannelFactoryCacheKey compareTo)
{
return object.ReferenceEquals(this, compareTo)
||
(compareTo != null
&&
this.channelType == compareTo.channelType
&&
this.endpointConfigurationName == compareTo.endpointConfigurationName);
}
public override bool Equals(object compareTo)
{
return this.Equals(compareTo as ChannelFactoryCacheKey);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return this.channelType.GetHashCode() ^ this.endpointConfigurationName.GetHashCode();
}
}
}
This should work:
public class SvcHelper
{
public static void Using<TClient>(Action<TClient> action) where TClient : ICommunicationObject, IDisposable
{
ChannelFactory<TClient> cnFactory = new ChannelFactory<TClient>("SomethingWebService");
TClient client = cnFactory.CreateChannel();
using (new OperationContextScope((IContextChannel)client))
{
action(client);
}
}
}

Categories