You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've been using SignalR in a local network environment for integrated apps and I have several situations where multiple concurrent SignalR connections are established, because I have segregated my hubs in a similar fashion as I would API controllers.
My question arose out of some implementation difficulties on the clients with maintaining multiple connections. Mainly I am using events to render changes in connection status. However I don't need a separate indication for every connection - I only have one, because I am connecting to a single server. So if a connection closes, I simultaneously report it from multiple clients and also simultaneously start concurrent processes to attempt to re-establish a connection.
From a high-level engineering standpoint I am thinking I will be better off if I have a single connection instance with one big hub and multiple clients reusing it. But what about lower level?
And so I arrive at my question. It seems to me that if the team prevented multiple hubs with one connection instance, as it was previously possible in .Net Framework - there should be a reason behind it. What is it?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I've been using SignalR in a local network environment for integrated apps and I have several situations where multiple concurrent SignalR connections are established, because I have segregated my hubs in a similar fashion as I would API controllers.
My question arose out of some implementation difficulties on the clients with maintaining multiple connections. Mainly I am using events to render changes in connection status. However I don't need a separate indication for every connection - I only have one, because I am connecting to a single server. So if a connection closes, I simultaneously report it from multiple clients and also simultaneously start concurrent processes to attempt to re-establish a connection.
From a high-level engineering standpoint I am thinking I will be better off if I have a single connection instance with one big hub and multiple clients reusing it. But what about lower level?
And so I arrive at my question. It seems to me that if the team prevented multiple hubs with one connection instance, as it was previously possible in .Net Framework - there should be a reason behind it. What is it?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions