我喜欢在using块中实例化我的WCF服务客户端,因为它几乎是使用实现IDisposable的资源的标准方式:

using (var client = new SomeWCFServiceClient()) 
{
    //Do something with the client 
}

但是,正如这篇MSDN文章中提到的,将WCF客户端包装在using块中可能会掩盖导致客户端处于故障状态(如超时或通信问题)的任何错误。长话短说,当调用Dispose()时,客户端的Close()方法会触发,但会抛出一个错误,因为它处于故障状态。然后,原始异常被第二个异常掩盖。不好的。

在MSDN文章中建议的解决方法是完全避免使用using块,而是实例化你的客户端,并像这样使用它们:

try
{
    ...
    client.Close();
}
catch (CommunicationException e)
{
    ...
    client.Abort();
}
catch (TimeoutException e)
{
    ...
    client.Abort();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
    ...
    client.Abort();
    throw;
}

与using块相比,我认为它很难看。每次需要客户端时都要写大量代码。

幸运的是,我找到了一些其他的解决方法,比如IServiceOriented博客上的这个(现在已经不存在了)。你可以这样开始:

public delegate void UseServiceDelegate<T>(T proxy); 

public static class Service<T> 
{ 
    public static ChannelFactory<T> _channelFactory = new ChannelFactory<T>(""); 
    
    public static void Use(UseServiceDelegate<T> codeBlock) 
    { 
        IClientChannel proxy = (IClientChannel)_channelFactory.CreateChannel(); 
        bool success = false; 
        try 
        { 
            codeBlock((T)proxy); 
            proxy.Close(); 
            success = true; 
        } 
        finally 
        { 
            if (!success) 
            { 
                proxy.Abort(); 
            } 
        } 
     } 
} 

这就允许:

Service<IOrderService>.Use(orderService => 
{ 
    orderService.PlaceOrder(request); 
}); 

这还不错,但我不认为它像using块那样具有表现力和易于理解。

我目前正在尝试使用的解决方法是我第一次在blog.davidbarret.net上读到的。基本上,无论在哪里使用客户机的Dispose()方法,都要重写它。喜欢的东西:

public partial class SomeWCFServiceClient : IDisposable
{
    void IDisposable.Dispose() 
    {
        if (this.State == CommunicationState.Faulted) 
        {
            this.Abort();
        } 
        else 
        {
            this.Close();
        }
    }
}

这似乎能够允许using块再次出现,而不会有隐藏故障状态异常的危险。

那么,使用这些变通方法还有其他需要注意的问题吗?有没有人想出更好的办法?


当前回答

重写客户端的Dispose(),而不需要基于ClientBase生成代理类,也不需要管理通道创建和缓存!(注意WcfClient不是一个ABSTRACT类,而是基于ClientBase)

// No need for a generated proxy class
//using (WcfClient<IOrderService> orderService = new WcfClient<IOrderService>())
//{
//    results = orderService.GetProxy().PlaceOrder(input);
//}

public class WcfClient<TService> : ClientBase<TService>, IDisposable
    where TService : class
{
    public WcfClient()
    {
    }

    public WcfClient(string endpointConfigurationName) :
        base(endpointConfigurationName)
    {
    }

    public WcfClient(string endpointConfigurationName, string remoteAddress) :
        base(endpointConfigurationName, remoteAddress)
    {
    }

    public WcfClient(string endpointConfigurationName, System.ServiceModel.EndpointAddress remoteAddress) :
        base(endpointConfigurationName, remoteAddress)
    {
    }

    public WcfClient(System.ServiceModel.Channels.Binding binding, System.ServiceModel.EndpointAddress remoteAddress) :
        base(binding, remoteAddress)
    {
    }

    protected virtual void OnDispose()
    {
        bool success = false;

        if ((base.Channel as IClientChannel) != null)
        {
            try
            {
                if ((base.Channel as IClientChannel).State != CommunicationState.Faulted)
                {
                    (base.Channel as IClientChannel).Close();
                    success = true;
                }
            }
            finally
            {
                if (!success)
                {
                    (base.Channel as IClientChannel).Abort();
                }
            }
        }
    }

    public TService GetProxy()
    {
        return this.Channel as TService;
    }

    public void Dispose()
    {
        OnDispose();
    }
}

其他回答

@Marc Gravell

用这个不是很好吗:

public static TResult Using<T, TResult>(this T client, Func<T, TResult> work)
        where T : ICommunicationObject
{
    try
    {
        var result = work(client);

        client.Close();

        return result;
    }
    catch (Exception e)
    {
        client.Abort();

        throw;
    }
}

或者在Service<IOrderService>的情况下,同样的事情(Func<T, TResult>)。使用

这将使返回变量更容易。

Given a choice between the solution advocated by IServiceOriented.com and the solution advocated by David Barret's blog, I prefer the simplicity offered by overriding the client's Dispose() method. This allows me to continue to use the using() statement as one would expect with a disposable object. However, as @Brian pointed out, this solution contains a race condition in that the State might not be faulted when it is checked but could be by the time Close() is called, in which case the CommunicationException still occurs.

因此,为了解决这个问题,我采用了一种混合了两种方法的解决方案。

void IDisposable.Dispose()
{
    bool success = false;
    try 
    {
        if (State != CommunicationState.Faulted) 
        {
            Close();
            success = true;
        }
    } 
    finally 
    {
        if (!success) 
            Abort();
    }
}

您还可以使用DynamicProxy来扩展Dispose()方法。你可以这样做:

using (var wrapperdProxy = new Proxy<yourProxy>())
{
   // Do whatever and dispose of Proxy<yourProxy> will be called and work properly.
}

我们的系统架构经常使用Unity IoC框架来创建ClientBase实例,所以没有确定的方法来强制其他开发人员使用{}块。为了使它尽可能的万无一难,我做了这个扩展ClientBase的自定义类,并处理在dispose时关闭通道,或者在finalize时关闭通道,以防有人没有显式地处置Unity创建的实例。

还有一些东西需要在构造函数中完成,为自定义凭证和其他东西设置通道,所以也在这里…

public abstract class PFServer2ServerClientBase<TChannel> : ClientBase<TChannel>, IDisposable where TChannel : class
{
    private bool disposed = false;

    public PFServer2ServerClientBase()
    {
        // Copy information from custom identity into credentials, and other channel setup...
    }

    ~PFServer2ServerClientBase()
    {
        this.Dispose(false);
    }

    void IDisposable.Dispose()
    {
        this.Dispose(true);
        GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
    }

    public void Dispose(bool disposing)
    {
        if (!this.disposed)
        {
            try
            {
                    if (this.State == CommunicationState.Opened)
                        this.Close();
            }
            finally
            {
                if (this.State == CommunicationState.Faulted)
                    this.Abort();
            }
            this.disposed = true;
        }
    }
}

然后客户可以简单地:

internal class TestClient : PFServer2ServerClientBase<ITest>, ITest
{
    public string TestMethod(int value)
    {
        return base.Channel.TestMethod(value);
    }
}

调用者可以做以下任何一件事:

public SomeClass
{
    [Dependency]
    public ITest test { get; set; }

    // Not the best, but should still work due to finalizer.
    public string Method1(int value)
    {
        return this.test.TestMethod(value);
    }

    // The good way to do it
    public string Method2(int value)
    {
        using(ITest t = unityContainer.Resolve<ITest>())
        {
            return t.TestMethod(value);
        }
    }
}

使用扩展方法:

public static class CommunicationObjectExtensions
{
    public static TResult MakeSafeServiceCall<TResult, TService>(this TService client, Func<TService, TResult> method) where TService : ICommunicationObject
    {
        TResult result;

        try
        {
            result = method(client);
        }
        finally
        {
            try
            {
                client.Close();
            }
            catch (CommunicationException)
            {
                client.Abort(); // Don't care about these exceptions. The call has completed anyway.
            }
            catch (TimeoutException)
            {
                client.Abort(); // Don't care about these exceptions. The call has completed anyway.
            }
            catch (Exception)
            {
                client.Abort();
                throw;
            }
        }

        return result;
    }
}