ninject with datacontext and need for static implementation in MVC - asp.net-mvc

I am using a .net standard class library to implement Entity Framework core on an existing ASP.NET MVC web application.
I am injecting the data context into the classes I am using, but I also need a static implementation for some specific method calls. The obvious issue here is that in the static context, I don't have an injected data context. so i did the following.
What is the correct way to do this?
I am using a Ninject Module in the library to map dependencies to the kernel in the web project.
namespace AppealTrack.Logic.Classes
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using Common.Entities;
using Data;
using Interfaces;
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
public class LookupLogic : ILookupLogic, IDisposable
{
private readonly AppealTrackDataContext _context;
public LookupLogic(AppealTrackDataContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public List<County> GetCountries(string state)
{
var list = _context.Countries.Where(x => state == null || x.State == state).Distinct().AsNoTracking().ToList();
return list;
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
public static class LookupLogicStatic
{
public static List<County> GetCountries(string state)
{
// this is the part that I don't think is correct:
using (var logic = new LookupLogic(new AppealTrackDataContext()))
{
var list = logic.GetCountries(state);
return list;
}
}
}
}

If you require a static GetCountries method, then there is not much you can do... you would need to manage the scope of DbContext for that method as static constructor does not take any arguments. Your LookupLogic does not have to be Disposable though (it can be if you want).
If you require a static method, then you don't have to add a new static class, you can add the static method to LookupLogic:
public class LookupLogic : ILookupLogic
{
private readonly AppealTrackDataContext _context;
public LookupLogic(AppealTrackDataContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public List<Country> GetCountries(string state)
{
return GetCountries(_context, state);
}
public static List<Country> GetCountriesStatic(string state)
{
using (var dbContext = new AppealTrackDataContext())
{
return GetCountries(dbContext, state);
}
}
private static List<Country> GetCountries(AppealTrackDataContext dbContext, string state)
{
return dbContext.Countries.Where(x => state == null || x.State == state).Distinct().AsNoTracking().ToList();
}
}

Related

How to new up an object independent of the container? [duplicate]

I'm trying to implement IoC in my windows form application. My choice fell on Simple Injector, because it's fast and lightweight. I also implement unit of work and repository pattern in my apps. Here is the structure:
DbContext:
public class MemberContext : DbContext
{
public MemberContext()
: base("Name=MemberContext")
{ }
public DbSet<Member> Members { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Conventions.Remove<PluralizingTableNameConvention>();\
}
}
Model:
public class Member
{
public int MemberID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
GenericRepository:
public abstract class GenericRepository<TEntity> : IGenericRepository<TEntity>
where TEntity : class
{
internal DbContext context;
internal DbSet<TEntity> dbSet;
public GenericRepository(DbContext context)
{
this.context = context;
this.dbSet = context.Set<TEntity>();
}
public virtual void Insert(TEntity entity)
{
dbSet.Add(entity);
}
}
MemberRepository:
public class MemberRepository : GenericRepository<Member>, IMemberRepository
{
public MemberRepository(DbContext context)
: base(context)
{ }
}
UnitOfWork:
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
public DbContext context;
public UnitOfWork(DbContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public void SaveChanges()
{
context.SaveChanges();
}
private bool disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!this.disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
context.Dispose();
}
}
this.disposed = true;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
MemberService:
public class MemberService : IMemberService
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork unitOfWork;
private readonly IMemberRepository memberRepository;
public MemberService(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, IMemberRepository memberRepository)
{
this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
this.memberRepository = memberRepository;
}
public void Save(Member member)
{
Save(new List<Member> { member });
}
public void Save(List<Member> members)
{
members.ForEach(m =>
{
if (m.MemberID == default(int))
{
memberRepository.Insert(m);
}
});
unitOfWork.SaveChanges();
}
}
In Member Form I only add a textbox to input member name and a button to save to database. This is the code in member form:
frmMember:
public partial class frmMember : Form
{
private readonly IMemberService memberService;
public frmMember(IMemberService memberService)
{
InitializeComponent();
this.memberService = memberService;
}
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Member member = new Member();
member.Name = txtName.Text;
memberService.Save(member);
}
}
I implement the SimpleInjector (refer to http://simpleinjector.readthedocs.org/en/latest/windowsformsintegration.html) in Program.cs as seen in the code below:
static class Program
{
private static Container container;
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Bootstrap();
Application.Run(new frmMember((MemberService)container.GetInstance(typeof(IMemberService))));
}
private static void Bootstrap()
{
container = new Container();
container.RegisterSingle<IMemberRepository, MemberRepository>();
container.Register<IMemberService, MemberService>();
container.Register<DbContext, MemberContext>();
container.Register<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork>();
container.Verify();
}
}
When I run the program and add a member, it doesn't save to database. If I changed container.Register to container.RegisterSingle, it will save to database. From the documentation, RegisterSingle will make my class to be a Singleton. I can't using RegisterLifeTimeScope because it will generate an error
"The registered delegate for type IMemberService threw an exception. The IUnitOfWork is registered as 'Lifetime Scope' lifestyle, but the instance is requested outside the context of a Lifetime Scope"
1) How to use SimpleInjector in Windows Form with UnitOfWork & Repository pattern?
2) Do I implement the patterns correctly?
The problem you have is the difference in lifestyles between your service, repository, unitofwork and dbcontext.
Because the MemberRepository has a Singleton lifestyle, Simple Injector will create one instance which will be reused for the duration of the application, which could be days, even weeks or months with a WinForms application. The direct consequence from registering the MemberRepository as Singleton is that all dependencies of this class will become Singletons as well, no matter what lifestyle is used in the registration. This is a common problem called Captive Dependency.
As a side note: The diagnostic services of Simple Injector are able to spot this configuration mistake and will show/throw a Potential Lifestyle Mismatch warning.
So the MemberRepository is Singleton and has one and the same DbContext throughout the application lifetime. But the UnitOfWork, which has a dependency also on DbContext will receive a different instance of the DbContext, because the registration for DbContext is Transient. This context will, in your example, never save the newly created Member because this DbContext does not have any newly created Member, the member is created in a different DbContext.
When you change the registration of DbContext to RegisterSingleton it will start working, because now every service, class or whatever depending on DbContext will get the same instance.
But this is certainly not the solution because having one DbContext for the lifetime of the application will get you into trouble, as you probably already know. This is explained in great detail in this post.
The solution you need is using a Scoped instance of the DbContext, which you already tried. You are missing some information on how to use the lifetime scope feature of Simple Injector (and most of the other containers out there). When using a Scoped lifestyle there must be an active scope as the exception message clearly states. Starting a lifetime scope is pretty simple:
using (ThreadScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(container))
{
// all instances resolved within this scope
// with a ThreadScopedLifestyleLifestyle
// will be the same instance
}
You can read in detail here.
Changing the registrations to:
var container = new Container();
container.Options.DefaultScopedLifestyle = new ThreadScopedLifestyle();
container.Register<IMemberRepository, MemberRepository>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Register<IMemberService, MemberService>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Register<DbContext, MemberContext>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Register<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
and changing the code from btnSaveClick() to:
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Member member = new Member();
member.Name = txtName.Text;
using (ThreadScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(container))
{
var memberService = container.GetInstance<IMemberService>();
memberService.Save(member);
}
}
is basically what you need.
But we have now introduced a new problem. We are now using the Service Locator anti pattern to get a Scoped instance of the IMemberService implementation. Therefore we need some infrastructural object which will handle this for us as a Cross-Cutting Concern in the application. A Decorator is a perfect way to implement this. See also here. This will look like:
public class ThreadScopedMemberServiceDecorator : IMemberService
{
private readonly Func<IMemberService> decorateeFactory;
private readonly Container container;
public ThreadScopedMemberServiceDecorator(Func<IMemberService> decorateeFactory,
Container container)
{
this.decorateeFactory = decorateeFactory;
this.container = container;
}
public void Save(List<Member> members)
{
using (ThreadScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(container))
{
IMemberService service = this.decorateeFactory.Invoke();
service.Save(members);
}
}
}
You now register this as a (Singleton) Decorator in the Simple Injector Container like this:
container.RegisterDecorator(
typeof(IMemberService),
typeof(ThreadScopedMemberServiceDecorator),
Lifestyle.Singleton);
The container will provide a class which depends on IMemberService with this ThreadScopedMemberServiceDecorator. In this the container will inject a Func<IMemberService> which, when invoked, will return an instance from the container using the configured lifestyle.
Adding this Decorator (and its registration) and changing the lifestyles will fix the issue from your example.
I expect however that your application will in the end have an IMemberService, IUserService, ICustomerService, etc... So you need a decorator for each and every IXXXService, not very DRY if you ask me. If all services will implement Save(List<T> items) you could consider creating an open generic interface:
public interface IService<T>
{
void Save(List<T> items);
}
public class MemberService : IService<Member>
{
// same code as before
}
You register all implementations in one line using Batch-Registration:
container.Register(typeof(IService<>),
new[] { Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() },
Lifestyle.Scoped);
And you can wrap all these instances into a single open generic implementation of the above mentioned ThreadScopedServiceDecorator.
It would IMO even be better to use the command / handler pattern (you should really read the link!) for this type of work. In very short: In this pattern every use case is translated to a message object (a command) which is handled by a single command handler, which can be decorated by e.g. a SaveChangesCommandHandlerDecorator and a ThreadScopedCommandHandlerDecorator and LoggingDecorator and so on.
Your example would then look like:
public interface ICommandHandler<TCommand>
{
void Handle(TCommand command);
}
public class CreateMemberCommand
{
public string MemberName { get; set; }
}
With the following handlers:
public class CreateMemberCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<CreateMemberCommand>
{
//notice that the need for MemberRepository is zero IMO
private readonly IGenericRepository<Member> memberRepository;
public CreateMemberCommandHandler(IGenericRepository<Member> memberRepository)
{
this.memberRepository = memberRepository;
}
public void Handle(CreateMemberCommand command)
{
var member = new Member { Name = command.MemberName };
this.memberRepository.Insert(member);
}
}
public class SaveChangesCommandHandlerDecorator<TCommand>
: ICommandHandler<TCommand>
{
private ICommandHandler<TCommand> decoratee;
private DbContext db;
public SaveChangesCommandHandlerDecorator(
ICommandHandler<TCommand> decoratee, DbContext db)
{
this.decoratee = decoratee;
this.db = db;
}
public void Handle(TCommand command)
{
this.decoratee.Handle(command);
this.db.SaveChanges();
}
}
And the form can now depend on ICommandHandler<T>:
public partial class frmMember : Form
{
private readonly ICommandHandler<CreateMemberCommand> commandHandler;
public frmMember(ICommandHandler<CreateMemberCommand> commandHandler)
{
InitializeComponent();
this.commandHandler = commandHandler;
}
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.commandHandler.Handle(
new CreateMemberCommand { MemberName = txtName.Text });
}
}
This can all be registered as follows:
container.Register(typeof(IGenericRepository<>),
typeof(GenericRepository<>));
container.Register(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
new[] { Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() });
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(SaveChangesCommandHandlerDecorator<>));
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(ThreadScopedCommandHandlerDecorator<>),
Lifestyle.Singleton);
This design will remove the need for UnitOfWork and a (specific) service completely.

How can I use same Ninject bindings in MVC and in my Models

I need to find a way to use Ninject in my classes (models) and also in my controllers of my MVC application.
How can I do to use the same bindings in both sides?
Right now I use my generated NinjectWebCommon.cs create my kernel and initialize the bootstrap:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
System.Web.Mvc.DependencyResolver.SetResolver(
new WebApplication1.Models.NinjectDependencyResolver(kernel)
);
}
My NinjectDependencyResolver looks like:
public class NinjectDependencyResolver : IDependencyResolver
{
private IKernel k;
public NinjectDependencyResolver(IKernel kp)
{
this.k= kp;
AddBindings();
}
public object GetService(Type serviceType)
{
return k.Get(serviceType);
}
public IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type serviceType)
{
return k.GetAll(serviceType);
}
private void AddBindings()
{
k.Bind<ISerializer>().To<MySerializer>();
}
}
MySerializer is my serialization class.
For my controllers, this part works fine.
But let's say I have the following model:
public class MyButton
{
ISerializer serializer;
public MyButton(ISerializer weapon)
{
serializer = weapon;
}
public string ToSString()
{
return serializer.serialize("my string - ");
}
}
How can I make Ninject work also for my model?
Thank you!
You may inject the model as well and add the following binding
private void AddBindings()
{
k.Bind<IMySerializer>().To<MySerializer>();
k.Bind<IModel>().To<Model>();
}
or if you are not injecting your model then you could do something like this thread says
using ninject to inject dependency to The Model classes or non-controller classes

How to create Repository Classes in MVC3 (Entity Framework)?

I created a project using MVC3 - Entity Framework. I like to use Repository Pattern together with it. I am new to repository pattern. Do I need to create ONE EACH Repository for each Model Class (classes which represent each table in the database) and within each repository do I have to write all the functions which will Insert, Update, Delete and Fetch record?
No you don't. You can implement a GenericRepository for all your classes and then override it if you need to add functions. First i am gonna show you the unit of work. Through this class you can access all the repositories. I have added to this example one generic and one overrided:
public class UnitOfWork
{
FBDbContext context = new FBDbContext();
public FBDbContext Context { get { return context; } }
private BlockRepository BlockRepository;
private GenericRepository<Category> CategoryRepository;
#region RepositoryClasses
public IBlockRepository blockRepository
{
get
{
if (this.BlockRepository == null)
this.BlockRepository = new BlockRepository(context);
return BlockRepository;
}
}
public IGenericRepository<Category> categoryRepository
{
get
{
if (this.CategoryRepository == null)
this.CategoryRepository = new GenericRepository<Category>(context);
return CategoryRepository;
}
}
#endregion
public void Save()
{
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
Then you have the generic repository:
public class GenericRepository<TEntity>
{
internal FBDbContext context;
internal DbSet<TEntity> dbSet;
public GenericRepository(FBDbContext context)
{
this.context = context;
this.dbSet = context.Set<TEntity>();
}
public virtual TEntity Create()
{
return Activator.CreateInstance<TEntity>();
}
public IQueryable<TEntity> GetAll()
{
return dbSet;
}
//And all the functions you want in all your model classes...
}
and an example when you want to override the generic repository:
public class BlockRepository : GenericRepository<Block>
{
public BlockRepository(FBDbContext context) : base(context) { }
public IEnumerable<Block> GetByCategory(Category category)
{
return context.Blocks.Where(r => r.CategoryId == category.Id);
}
}
You can create common repository which will have common methods, all other repositories will be it's children:
public class MyModelRepository : GenericRepository<MyModel>
{
// extend
}
var MyModelRepository = new MyModelRepository();
See this, or google for "Generic Repository" :). If your don't need extended functionality for some model repository, then you can even not create repository class, instead do something like this:
var MyModelRepository = new GenericRepository<MyModel>();
Have an interface that represents the common operations between each repository. I.e. Insert, Update, Delete and Fetch:
public interface IRepository<T>
{
void Insert(T entity);
void Delete(T entity);
void Update(T entity);
void Fetch(T entity);
}
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T>
/// your implementation
}
Then in each model you could define the repository to suit the context, for instance:
var repository1 = new Repository<ModelType>(dataContext);
repository1.Insert(obj);
var repository2 = new Repository<DifferentModelType>(dataContext);
repository2.Fetch(objects);
http://www.remondo.net/repository-pattern-example-csharp/

Ninject And Connection Strings

I am very new to Ninject and am trying Ninject 2 with MVC and Linq. I have a SqlProductRepository class and all I want to know is what's the best way of passing the connectionstring in the constructor if I am injecting the Repository object in the controller.
public class SqlProductRepository:IProductRepository
{
private Table<Product> productsTable;
public SqlProductRepository(string connectionString)
{
productsTable = (new DataContext(connectionString)).GetTable<Product>();
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return productsTable; }
}
}
This is my ProductController class where I am injecting the Repository:
public class ProductsController : Controller
{
private int pageSize = 4;
public int PageSize { get { return pageSize; } set { pageSize = value; } }
IProductRepository _productsRepository;
[Inject]
public ProductsController(IProductRepository productRepository)
{
_productsRepository = productRepository;
}
public ViewResult List(int page)
{
return View(_productsRepository.Products
.Skip((page - 1) * pageSize)
.Take(pageSize)
.ToList()
);
}
}
Can somebody please guide me regarding this?
You can set it up in your binding
_kernel.Bind<IProductRepository>()
.To<SqlProductRepository>()
.WithConstructorArgument("connectionString",yourConnectionString );
You're doing:
new DataContext(connectionString)
in your code - this is the very newing and binding to classes you're trying to push out of your code by using a DI container. At the very least, consider adding an IConnectionStringSelector interface or something like that. You dont want to have 20 Bind calls for 20 repositories - you want a higher level abstraction than that.
I'd suggest the best solution is that you should be demanding either an IDataContext or an IDataContextFactory in the constructor instead and letting that worry about it.
You could supply the connection string as a constructor argument when binding the SqlProductRepository to the IProductRepository interface.
public class LinqToSqlModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IProductRepository>().To<SqlProductRepository>()
.WithConstructorArgument(connectionString, "connectionstring");
}
}
I would suggest a slightly different approach. First of all, you might want to create a binding for the DataContext class in the kernel. You could do so by using a provider class to create your DataContext passing the connection string as an argument to its constructor. Then you bind the DataContext to the DataContextProvider.
public class DataContextProvider : Provider<DataContext>
{
protected override DataContext CreateInstance(IContext context)
{
string connectionString = "connectionstring";
return new DataContext(connectionString);
}
}
public class LinqToSqlModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<DataContext>().ToProvider<DataContextProvider>();
Bind<IProductRepository>().To<SqlProductRepository>();
}
}
Next modify the constructor of SqlProductRepository class to accept a DataContext object instead.
public class SqlProductRepository : IProductRepository
{
private readonly DataContext context;
public ProductRepository(DataContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products
{
get { return context.GetTable<Product>(); }
}
}
By the way you don't have to decorate your constructor with the Inject attribute. Ninject will select the constructor with the most parameters by default.
Please refer below code snap:
//Bind the default connection string
public void BindDataContext()
{
ConstructorArgument parameter = new ConstructorArgument("connectionString", "[Config Value]");
Bind<DataContext>().ToSelf().InRequestScope().WithParameter(parameter);
}
//Re-Bind the connection string (in case of multi-tenant architecture)
public void ReBindDataContext(string cn)
{
ConstructorArgument parameter = new ConstructorArgument("connectionString", cn);
Rebind<DataContext>().ToSelf().InRequestScope().WithParameter(parameter);
}
For more information, please visit below link
MVC3, Ninject and Ninject.MVC3 problem

Caching Data Objects when using Repository/Service Pattern and MVC

I have an MVC-based site, which is using a Repository/Service pattern for data access.
The Services are written to be using in a majority of applications (console, winform, and web). Currently, the controllers communicate directly to the services. This has limited the ability to apply proper caching.
I see my options as the following:
Write a wrapper for the web app, which implements the IWhatEverService which does caching.
Apply caching in each controller by cache the ViewData for each Action.
Don't worry about data caching and just implement OutputCaching for each Action.
I can see the pros and cons of each. What is/should the best practice be for caching with Repository/Service
Steve Smith did two great blog posts which demonstrate how to use his CachedRepository pattern to achieve the result you're looking for.
Introducing the CachedRepository Pattern
Building a CachedRepository via Strategy Pattern
In these two posts he shows you how to set up this pattern and also explains why it is useful. By using this pattern you get caching without your existing code seeing any of the caching logic. Essentially you use the cached repository as if it were any other repository.
public class CachedAlbumRepository : IAlbumRepository
{
private readonly IAlbumRepository _albumRepository;
public CachedAlbumRepository(IAlbumRepository albumRepository)
{
_albumRepository = albumRepository;
}
private static readonly object CacheLockObject = new object();
public IEnumerable<Album> GetTopSellingAlbums(int count)
{
Debug.Print("CachedAlbumRepository:GetTopSellingAlbums");
string cacheKey = "TopSellingAlbums-" + count;
var result = HttpRuntime.Cache[cacheKey] as List<Album>;
if (result == null)
{
lock (CacheLockObject)
{
result = HttpRuntime.Cache[cacheKey] as List<Album>;
if (result == null)
{
result = _albumRepository.GetTopSellingAlbums(count).ToList();
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(cacheKey, result, null,
DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(60), TimeSpan.Zero);
}
}
}
return result;
}
}
The easiest way would be to handle caching in your repository provider. That way you don't have to change out any code in the rest of your app; it will be oblivious to the fact that the data was served out of a cache rather than the repository.
So, I'd create an interface that the controllers use to communicate with the backend, and in the implementation of this I'd add the caching logic. Wrap it all up in a nice bow with some DI, and your app will be set for easy testing.
Based on answer provided by Brendan, I defined a generic cached repository for the special case of relatively small lists that are rarely changed, but heavily read.
1. The interface
public interface IRepository<T> : IRepository
where T : class
{
IQueryable<T> AllNoTracking { get; }
IQueryable<T> All { get; }
DbSet<T> GetSet { get; }
T Get(int id);
void Insert(T entity);
void BulkInsert(IEnumerable<T> entities);
void Delete(T entity);
void RemoveRange(IEnumerable<T> range);
void Update(T entity);
}
2. Normal/non-cached repository
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
private readonly IEfDbContext _context;
public Repository(IEfDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<T> All => _context.Set<T>().AsQueryable();
public IQueryable<T> AllNoTracking => _context.Set<T>().AsNoTracking();
public IQueryable AllNoTrackingGeneric(Type t)
{
return _context.GetSet(t).AsNoTracking();
}
public DbSet<T> GetSet => _context.Set<T>();
public DbSet GetSetNonGeneric(Type t)
{
return _context.GetSet(t);
}
public IQueryable AllNonGeneric(Type t)
{
return _context.GetSet(t);
}
public T Get(int id)
{
return _context.Set<T>().Find(id);
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
if (_context.Entry(entity).State == EntityState.Detached)
_context.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
_context.Set<T>().Remove(entity);
}
public void RemoveRange(IEnumerable<T> range)
{
_context.Set<T>().RemoveRange(range);
}
public void Insert(T entity)
{
_context.Set<T>().Add(entity);
}
public void BulkInsert(IEnumerable<T> entities)
{
_context.BulkInsert(entities);
}
public void Update(T entity)
{
_context.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
}
3. Generic cached repository is based on non-cached one
public interface ICachedRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
string CacheKey { get; }
void InvalidateCache();
void InsertIntoCache(T item);
}
public class CachedRepository<T> : ICachedRepository<T>, IRepository<T> where T : class, new()
{
private readonly IRepository<T> _modelRepository;
private static readonly object CacheLockObject = new object();
private IList<T> ThreadSafeCacheAccessAction(Action<IList<T>> action = null)
{
// refresh cache if necessary
var list = HttpRuntime.Cache[CacheKey] as IList<T>;
if (list == null)
{
lock (CacheLockObject)
{
list = HttpRuntime.Cache[CacheKey] as IList<T>;
if (list == null)
{
list = _modelRepository.All.ToList();
//TODO: remove hardcoding
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(CacheKey, list, null, DateTime.UtcNow.AddMinutes(10), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration);
}
}
}
// execute custom action, if one is required
if (action != null)
{
lock (CacheLockObject)
{
action(list);
}
}
return list;
}
public IList<T> GetCachedItems()
{
IList<T> ret = ThreadSafeCacheAccessAction();
return ret;
}
/// <summary>
/// returns value without using cache, to allow Queryable usage
/// </summary>
public IQueryable<T> All => _modelRepository.All;
public IQueryable<T> AllNoTracking
{
get
{
var cachedItems = GetCachedItems();
return cachedItems.AsQueryable();
}
}
// other methods come here
public void BulkInsert(IEnumerable<T> entities)
{
var enumerable = entities as IList<T> ?? entities.ToList();
_modelRepository.BulkInsert(enumerable);
// also inserting items within the cache
ThreadSafeCacheAccessAction((list) =>
{
foreach (var item in enumerable)
list.Add(item);
});
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_modelRepository.Delete(entity);
ThreadSafeCacheAccessAction((list) =>
{
list.Remove(entity);
});
}
}
Using a DI framework (I am using Ninject), one can easily define if a repository should be cached or not:
// IRepository<T> should be solved using Repository<T>, by default
kernel.Bind(typeof(IRepository<>)).To(typeof(Repository<>));
// IRepository<T> must be solved to Repository<T>, if used in CachedRepository<T>
kernel.Bind(typeof(IRepository<>)).To(typeof(Repository<>)).WhenInjectedInto(typeof(CachedRepository<>));
// explicit repositories using caching
var cachedTypes = new List<Type>
{
typeof(ImportingSystem), typeof(ImportingSystemLoadInfo), typeof(Environment)
};
cachedTypes.ForEach(type =>
{
// allow access as normal repository
kernel
.Bind(typeof(IRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type))
.To(typeof(CachedRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type));
// allow access as a cached repository
kernel
.Bind(typeof(ICachedRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type))
.To(typeof(CachedRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type));
});
So, reading from cached repositories is done without knowing about the caching. However, changing them requires to inject from ICacheRepository<> and calling the appropriate methods.

Resources