<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Avoiding OneWay Deadlocks</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx</link><description>I have two web services and I'm seeing a deadlock when making calls between them. The operation calls are marked as OneWay. How do I fix this? And, how is it even possible for one-way calls to block? Marking an operation with the OneWay attribute doesn't</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Avoiding OneWay Deadlocks</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#838984</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:59:22 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:838984</guid><dc:creator>Mike Bosch</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;So what is the proper way to make the calls &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; fire and forget? &amp;nbsp;It seems this is more of a fire, wait to see if you hit your target, then forget. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>TransportWithMessageCredential Over TCP</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#839354</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:08:28 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:839354</guid><dc:creator>Nicholas Allen's Indigo Blog</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;After switching from message security to transport security, I'm seeing a bunch of weird protocols being&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Avoiding OneWay Deadlocks</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#839735</link><pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:23:18 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:839735</guid><dc:creator>Nicholas Allen</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Mike, that's exactly the right way to think about OneWay tagged operation calls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Having true fire-and-forget means that your channels must be able to return immediately after sending a message. &amp;nbsp;Typically this requires you to have no delivery guarantees (messages may be lost, duplicated, misordered, whatever along the way). &amp;nbsp;Datagram transports, such as UDP, are an example of channels that can do this. &amp;nbsp;Asynchronous transports, such as mail or queues, can be pretty close to fire-and-forget. &amp;nbsp;They still have to wait for the store to accept the message but they don't have to wait for delivery or processing.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>New and Notable 116</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#843866</link><pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:07:09 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:843866</guid><dc:creator>Sam Gentile</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Now that I got my Feed Demon back, I actually have some stuff in the queue that is not so &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; but perhaps&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Avoiding OneWay Deadlocks</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#866445</link><pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:56:08 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:866445</guid><dc:creator>Brian Mowbray</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;We used the timeout setting to help mitigate a lock or does this only apply to the soapclient call? The default setting is 2 minutes.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Avoiding OneWay Deadlocks</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#867886</link><pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:45:41 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:867886</guid><dc:creator>Nicholas Allen</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Timeouts are an expensive runtime mitigation that could used for some types of cross-service deadlocks. &amp;nbsp;I would not recommend that as a first line approach if you have any other practical alternatives. &amp;nbsp;You're going to tie up resources on both the client and server waiting for the call to complete. &amp;nbsp;After failing, you're going to have to try again, hoping that this time the call goes through. &amp;nbsp;You're also going to get a whole lot of junk in your logs because of the failures and aborts. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>New and Notable 116</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#5114090</link><pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:05:19 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:5114090</guid><dc:creator>Sam Gentile</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Now that I got my Feed Demon back, I actually have some stuff in the queue that is not so &amp;amp;quot;new&amp;amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>New and Notable 116</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/drnick/archive/2006/10/18/avoiding-oneway-deadlocks.aspx#9172288</link><pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:20:24 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9172288</guid><dc:creator>Sam Gentile's Blog</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Now that I got my Feed Demon back, I actually have some stuff in the queue that is not so &amp;amp;quot;new&amp;amp;quot; but perhaps still &amp;amp;quot;notable.&amp;amp;quot; Architecture/CAB/Smart Client Oldie but goodie: Eugenio has compiled a list of CAB and Smart Client Software&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>