Considerations when building a caching mechanism for WP7Contrib.

For anyone wanting to build a cache for an application, there are several guidelines(may be rules) you want to beware of and more than likely abid by.

Firstly, more than likely you are going to have an in-memory representation of the cache as well as a persisted format if the cache is to survive application restarts. Now an in-memory representation is more than likely going to be a hash-table - especially if you want acceptable retrieval time. Now this is where 'GetHashCode' comes into play and the importance of this is explained perfectly by Eric Lippert,

Secondly, and this follows on from a statement in Eric's post - 'the integer returned by GetHashCode should never change', if you're using the internal state of a class to calculate the hash code, you can't allow that state to change overtime. So this means you are more than likely going to have create a copy of the instance before using it as a 'key' when adding to the cache, because this will then negate this issue,

Thirdly, the data in the cache will be become stale at some point, so expirying data out of the cache will be a requirement, a cache is not a replacement for permanent persistence store like a database or files etc,

Finally, the cache should be transparent to the application, what I mean by this is if the cache fails during execution the only observable difference should be in application performance, the application should still be fully functional. This means if an exception occurs inside the cache it shouldn't be propergated to the host application.

So when we defined the cache providers in WP7Contrib we added an extra interface to the 'Common' project - ICloneable<T>. This is there to help define how an object will be copied\cloned, it defines methods for both shallow and deep copying. We use this interface for any class we wish to use as a 'key' when adding to a cache provider.

Comments

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 Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way 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

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

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called: I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th

Awkward Coder

Search This Blog