Re: asp.net webservice design/ component issue

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: Jan Tielens (jan_at_no.spam.please.leadit.be)
Date: 02/20/04 

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:44:30 +0100

> Would this approach give me the
> best of both worlds -- being able to use the benefits of .net remoting
> to share a single object while at the same time insulating the client
> from the details of remoting?
Exactly!

> Also, could someone please explain briefly the negative impact of
> using the Application state object to maintain an instance of my
> component?
By default web services are stateless (so you can't use the session). In my
opinion you should try to keep this like that. Also suppose your web server
(IIS) goes down, the session state will be lost forever (unless you put it
into sql server). 

--
Greetz
Jan Tielens
________________________________
Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan
"Evelyn" <EvelynWong@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:d09ec007.0402191206.14a89aca@posting.google.com...
> Thanks for the info.  I've read the tutorial and plan to work through
> the example.
>
> I'd like to avoid deploying the remoting objects as web services
> through IIS.  This is primarily because my clients are from a variety
> of languages/platforms (it is my understanding that even when using
> SOAP over HTTP, a client of a remoting web service needs to be aware
> to a certain extent of the remoting infrastructure).
>
> This leads me to wonder:  would it be reasonable for me to set up a
> ASP.NET web service that in turn relies upon a singleton remoting
> object to provide the functionality (i.e., handling the requests to
> the resource intensive component)?  Would this approach give me the
> best of both worlds -- being able to use the benefits of .net remoting
> to share a single object while at the same time insulating the client
> from the details of remoting?
>
> Also, could someone please explain briefly the negative impact of
> using the Application state object to maintain an instance of my
> component?
>
> Thanks again, Jan for your timely and helpful response.
>
> Evelyn Wong
> "Jan Tielens" <jan@no.spam.please.leadit.be> wrote in message
news:<OOKsjZr9DHA.2696@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>...
> > You could create a singleton in .NET Remoting. By doing so you can
specify
> > the LeaseTime for that "shared instance" (= the time that object stays
in
> > memory).
> >
> > Here's a nice tutorial:
> > http://www.codeproject.com/csharp/DotNetRemotingBasicTutor.asp
> >
> > --
> > Greetz
> >
> > Jan Tielens
> > ________________________________
> > Read my weblog: http://weblogs.asp.net/jan
> >
> >
> > "Evelyn" <EvelynWong@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > news:d09ec007.0402181521.47109967@posting.google.com...
> > > I'm in the process of rewriting an ASP.net webservice.
> > >
> > > This service exposes functionality provided by a resource intensive
> > > COM component.  The problem with the current implementation is that
> > > the overhead associated with creating an instance of the component
> > > each time the service is invoked is not trivial and results in an
> > > unacceptable performance drain on the server.
> > >
> > > My goal is to redesign this so that, one way or another, a single
> > > instance of the component can remain resident in memory and handle all
> > > incoming requests.
> > >
> > > My initial idea is to design a wrapper component that could hold the
> > > single instance of the beastly object and manage incoming requests
> > > (though some sort of queuing mechanism).  Even though I hope that the
> > > performance of the web service will be improved by this approach, it
> > > is not really a problem if it turns out the that the client needs to
> > > wait (the problem is overall server resources, not performance of the
> > > service in particular).
> > >
> > > This is where my thought process breaks down.  How would I set up my
> > > wrapper class so that is available to the web service each time it is
> > > invoked?  Can this be done via the Application object?
> > >
> > > Am I on the right track?  Am I overlooking a more simple approach?
> > >
> > > Any help would be appreciated.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Evelyn Wong

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sending Messages and Sharing Objects
    ... RJ> are using CSLA framework by Rocky because it allows us to switch ... Web Service, Remoting or Simple ... RJ> since client requirements could vary. ... RJ> to use any of the channels - 2Tier, Web Service or Remoting ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.distributed_apps)
  • Re: Pushing data from the server to the client
    ... >> your client that listens.. ... it hits your web service or uses remoting. ... So I mocked up a facade web service on my side in .NET ... >> connection with Remoting, so you'd also have a practical limit based on ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.webservices)
  • Re: Pushing data from the server to the client
    ... >> your client that listens.. ... it hits your web service or uses remoting. ... So I mocked up a facade web service on my side in .NET ... >> connection with Remoting, so you'd also have a practical limit based on ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting)
  • Re: Pushing data from the server to the client
    ... >> your client that listens.. ... it hits your web service or uses remoting. ... So I mocked up a facade web service on my side in .NET ... >> connection with Remoting, so you'd also have a practical limit based on ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: soapsuds
    ... pre-instantiated exe running in a singleton mode, for remoting, even if you ... Revised framework implementations will probably not break your application ... We can then compile the client using this code which allows us ... Both client and server are ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.remoting)