skip to Main Content

System.Transactions: New and Improved Transaction Management Model for .NET 2.0

Ok, so System.Transactions is not new to many .NET developers but it’s new to me. We have just started to research transaction management in my current .NET 2.0 project at work and  System.Transactions is looking beautiful. It gives us exactly what we need without the overhead of the old EnterpriseServices model (registering with COM+, having a strong name key, etc.) or the high maintenance of manual transaction management.

System.Transactions is more light-weight compared to EnterpriseServices. The programming model is relatively simple. You use the TransactionScope class to wrap your code inside a transaction. TransactionScope can be nested and can be assigned different transaction options such as Required or RequiresNew, similar to the various transaction attributes for EnterpriseServices.

using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) 
{ 
  // do some work here (like executing a SQL, calling a method, etc.) 

  // The Complete method commits the transaction. If an exception has been thrown, 
  // Complete is not  called and the transaction is rolled back. 
  scope.Complete(); 
}

In my brief testing with Enterprise Library 2.0 and an Oracle database via Oracle Data Provider, I found that System.Transactions always enlist my transactions in MSDTC (Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator). I am sure there is some overhead associated with this. I will do some more performance test later to find out exactly what the overhead is. I was hoping that for a transaction involing a single database/connection string, that MSDTC would not be needed. But further research indicated that the non-MSDTC/light-weight transaction only works with SQL Server 2005.

If your transaction management needs extend beyond databases, you can even write your own resource manages so that operations such as copying a file can be wrapped inside a transaction as well. Look into the IEnlistmentNotification interface.

Here are some good articles about System.Transactions for your further reading:

StringBuilder is not always faster – Part 1 of 2

How often have you been told to use StringBuilder to concatenate strings in .NET? My guess is often enough. Here is something you may not know about string concatenation: StringBuilder is not always faster. There are already many articles out there that explain the why’s, I am not going to do that here. But I do have some test data for you.

When concatenating three values or less, traditional concatenation is faster (by a very small margin)

This block of code took 1484 milliseconds to run on my PC:

for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++) 
{ 
    // Concat strings 3 times using StringBuilder 
    StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(); 
    s.Append(i.ToString()); 
    s.Append(i.ToString()); 
    s.Append(i.ToString()); 
}

And this one, using traditional concatenation, took slightly less time (1344 milliseconds):

for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++) 
{ 
    // Concat strings 3 times using traditional concatenation 
    string s = i.ToString(); 
    s = s + i.ToString(); 
    s = s + i.ToString(); 
}

The above data suggests that StringBuilder only starts to work faster once the number of concatenations exceed 3.

Building strings from literals

When building a large string from several string literals (such as building a SQL block, or a client side javascript block), use neither traditional concatenation nor StringBuilder. Instead, choose one of the methods below:

+ operator

// Build script block 
string s = "<script>" 
       + "function test() {" 
       + "  alert('this is a test');" 
       + "  return 0;" 
       + "}";

The compiler concatenates that at compile time. At run-time, that works as fast as a big string literal.

@ string literal

I sometimes use the @ string literal which allows for newlines (I find this syntax is harder to maintain, formatting-wise, than using the + operator):

string s = @"<script> 
        function test() { 
        alert('this is a test'); 
        return 0; 
        }";

Both methods above run about 40 times faster than using StringBuilder or traditional string concatenation.

Rules of Thumb

  • When concatenating three dynamic string values or less, use traditional string concatenation.
  • When concatenating more than three dynamic string values, use StringBuilder.
  • When building a big string from several string literals, use either the @ string literal or the inline + operator.

Updated 2007-09-29

I have posted a follow-up article to provide more detailed analysis and to answer some of the questions asked by readers.

Google Co-op

Google Co-op allows you to create customized search engines to fit your search interests. .NET developers, you may want to give the following pre-customized search engines a try:

For me, Co-op is a good idea but for now I will stick with just regular Google, at least for .NET related searches. I gave SearchDotNet.com a try and was initially underwhelmed my the number of matches. For example, searching for “EntryAssembly” using the DotNetSearch engine above yielded two pages of matches. Regular Google returns 387 pages.

Test Your Web Site in Internet Explorer 6 Using Microsoft IE6 Virtual Test Image

We all know that it’s a good idea to test our web pages in all popular browsers (to me that’s the various current versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox). It’s also a good idea to back up your data frequently, to listen to your elders, to not take a bath right after dinner, etc. Ok, so I admit I didn’t test my latest WordPress theme in IE6. While browsing the web on a friend’s PC, I discovered that my blog did not render correctly in IE6. It was broken in a major way. The right side bar completely disappears. Ouch!

I needed a way to test my site in Internet Explorer 6 at home, and since I have upgraded all of my PC’s at home to IE7, it seems like it’s a good time to give “virtual appliances” a try.

It took me about an hour to download the Internet Explorer 6 Application Compatibility VPC Image, install it, and have the virtual machine up and running. It helped that I already had Virtual Server installed. Yes Virtual Server works with Virtual PC disk images just fine. The current IE6 image expires on 4/1/2007 but I am sure Microsoft will replace it with another one when the time arrives. There is a blog entry on IEBlog about the image here.

Now I can reproduce the problem on my PC using IE6. That’s going to be the easy part I am afraid.

IE6

Update (2/8/2007): I fixed the IE6 problem. Apparently I had some sort of error in my sidebar.php file which messed up the HTML code, causing problems with IE6.

Back To Top