Skip to main content

WP7Contrib: Transient caching with In Memory Cache Provider


Rich and I are currently working on a WP7 application based around local content stored on the device.  This content consists of a database and a set of flat files per logical item.  The content for the application can contain many of these logical items; this is determined by the user when purchasing the application.  The content is either installed along with the application at purchase or is downloaded afterwards. The application is completely self-contained and read-only – it doesn't allow modification of content.

The application in theory has n number of these logical items; each logical item is queried for a set of data.  This data consists of information extracted from a database and flat files.  Once the data has been extracted it is then mapped into the required model.  This process could be repeated n number of times whilst the application is being used.  There is a time penalty in accessing the flat files & database to get the data.

This process is an ideal candidate for use with a caching strategy – read once and store in cache.

WP7Contrib has a defined caching strategy with several implementations, the main two being isolated storage cache provider and in memory cache provider. The first is a persistent-cache backed by isolated storage so it will survive application restarts; the other is an in-memory-only implementation which is transient and does not support application restarts.  The class diagram is shown below:


We decided to use the in-memory cache provider for this application because if we had used the isolated storage implementation we would have been extracting from one format (flat file & database) to be stored in a different format (serialized objects) in a file in isolated storage.  Adding the required serialization support to the model can be a fiddly task prone with un-intelligible exceptions when it doesn’t work.  This is true irrespective of the serialization framework you use.  In addition to this, you will still have to access the flat file and database periodically anyway, so why add the overhead?

The in-memory cache provider is a very simple implementation; it uses a Dictionary class internally with a timer to remove items once they have expired.  It is thread-safe and does not use weak references for items in the dictionary so items will not expire unexpectedly.

You will also notice from the above diagram a cache provider called NullCacheProvider.  This is as the name suggests an implementation of the ICacheProvider interface that does not do anything!  It follows the ‘Null Object Pattern’.  We use it when a component defines dependency on the ICacheProvider interface but we don’t wish to use caching, and also for measuring and testing caching implementation performance.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WPF tips & tricks: Dispatcher thread performance

Not blogged for an age, and I received an email last week which provoked me back to life. It was a job spec for a WPF contract where they want help sorting out the performance of their app especially around grids and tabular data. I thought I'd shared some tips & tricks I've picked up along the way, these aren't probably going to solve any issues you might be having directly, but they might point you in the right direction when trying to find and resolve performance issues with a WPF app. First off, performance is something you shouldn't try and improve without evidence, and this means having evidence proving you've improved the performance - before & after metrics for example. Without this you're basically pissing into the wind, which can be fun from a developer point of view but bad for a project :) So, what do I mean by ' Dispatcher thread performance '? The 'dispatcher thread' or the 'UI thread' is probably the most

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v