I have tried most of the examples in the Google Results, Stackoverflow and in AutoMapper. But was not able to get the IValueResolverdependancy injection to work.
I have below service
public class StorageService : IStorageService
{
private readonly BlobServiceSettings _blobServiceSettings;
public StorageService(IOptions<BlobServiceSettings> blobServiceSettings)
{
_blobServiceSettings = blobServiceSettings.Value;
}
// some methods I need
}
This is my profile
public class MappingProfile : Profile
{
public MappingProfile()
{
CreateMap<Building, BuildingEnvelope>(MemberList.None)
.ForMember(dest => dest.ImageUrl, opt => opt.ResolveUsing<BuildingImageUrlResolver>());
}
}
this is my IValueResolver
public class BuildingImageUrlResolver : IValueResolver<Building, BuildingEnvelope, string>
{
private readonly IStorageService _storageService;
public BuildingImageUrlResolver(IStorageService storageService)
{
_storageService = storageService;
}
public string Resolve(Building entity, BuildingEnvelope envelope, string member, ResolutionContext context)
{
return _storageService.MyMethod(entity.ImageFileName);
}
}
I get the below error in my inner exception
No parameterless constructor defined for this object.
Not sure what I am doing wrong.
Thanks in advance
Neo
Lucian's suggestion is correct -- the AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection package is the way to go. Even if you don't want to use it, you'll have to do something similar.
I've had this very same problem and by using the extensions, you just modify the entrypoint from which you register AutoMapper and its configuration.
What the extensions do (source) is:
Initializes Automapper with the configuration provided
It scans for all classes you have that you could be implementing with dependency injection and registers them as transient, looking for implementations of the following:
IValueResolver
IMemberValueResolver
ITypeConverter
IMappingAction
The assemblies that it will scan actually depend on the parameters that you provide on the call.
If any of these can be actually instantiated, then they will be registered as transient implementation.
And just like that, AutoMapper will request instances of these to the service provider, which will resolve them, and to do that, it will also resolve any pending dependencies.
Note that this is actually very simple -- the most difficult part is scanning the right assemblies and registering the right classes. You can do it manually too, but these extensions already take care of it for you.
Mind you, even when reflection has been improved a lot, this process is relatively slow, so try not to abuse it too much (for instance, in tests).
Finally, if none of that works for you, remember that you need to setup AutoMapper to use the dependency injection resolver too:
automapperConfiguration.ConstructServicesUsing(serviceProvider.GetService);
Related
I'm struggling with a particular dependency injection problem and I just can't seem to figure it out. FYI: I'm new to guice, but I have experience with other DI frameworks - that's why I believe this shouldn't be to complicated to achieve.
What am I doing:
I'm working on Lagom multi module project and using Guice as DI.
What I would like to achieve:
Inject multiple named instances of some interface implementation (lets' call it publisher, since it will publishing messages to kafka topic) to my service.
This 'publisher' has injected some Lagom and Akka related services (ServiceLocator, ActorSystem, Materializer, etc..).
Now I would like to have two instances of such publisher and each will publish messages to different topic (So one publisher instance per topic).
How would I achieve that?
I have no problem with one instance or multiple instances for the same topic, but if I want to inject different topic name for each instance I have a problem.
So my publisher implementation constructor looks like that:
#Inject
public PublisherImpl(
#Named("topicName") String topic,
ServiceLocator serviceLocator,
ActorSystem actorSystem,
Materializer materializer,
ApplicationLifecycle applicationLifecycle) {
...
}
If I want to create one instance I would do it like this in my ServiceModule:
public class FeedListenerServiceModule extends AbstractModule implements ServiceGuiceSupport {
#Override
protected void configure() {
bindService(MyService.class, MyServiceImpl.class);
bindConstant().annotatedWith(Names.named("topicName")).to("topicOne");
bind(Publisher.class).annotatedWith(Names.named("publisherOne")).to(PublisherImpl.class);
}
}
How would I bind multiple publishers each for it's own topic?
I was playing around with implementing another private module:
public class PublisherModule extends PrivateModule {
private String publisherName;
private String topicName;
public PublisherModule(String publisherName, String topicName) {
this.publisherName = publisherName;
this.topicName = topicName;
}
#Override
protected void configure() {
bindConstant().annotatedWith(Names.named("topicName")).to(topicName);
bind(Publisher.class).annotatedWith(Names.named(publisherName)).to(PublisherImpl.class);
}
}
but this led me nowhere since you can't get injector in you module configuration method:
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(this); // This will throw IllegalStateException : Re-entry is not allowed
injector.createChildInjector(
new PublisherModule("publisherOne", "topicOne"),
new PublisherModule("publisherTwo", "topicTwo"));
The only solution which is easy and it works is that I change my PublisherImpl to abstract, add him abstract 'getTopic()' method and add two more implementations with topic override.
But this solution is lame. Adding additional inheritance for code reuse is not exactly the best practice. Also I believe that Guice for sure must support such feature.
Any advises are welcome.
KR, Nejc
Don't create a new Injector within a configure method. Instead, install the new modules you create. No child injectors needed—as in the PrivateModule documentation, "Private modules are implemented using parent injectors", so there's a child injector involved anyway.
install(new PublisherModule("publisherOne", "topicOne"));
install(new PublisherModule("publisherTwo", "topicTwo"));
Your technique of using PrivateModule is the one I'd go with in this situation, particularly given the desire to make the bindings available through binding annotations as you have it, and particularly if the full set of topics is known at runtime. You could even put the call to install in a loop.
However, if you need an arbitrary number of implementations, you may want to create an injectable factory or provider to which you can pass a String set at runtime.
public class PublisherProvider {
// You can inject Provider<T> for all T bindings in Guice, automatically, which
// lets you configure in your Module whether or not instances are shared.
#Inject private final Provider<ServiceLocator> serviceLocatorProvider;
// ...
private final Map<String, Publisher> publisherMap = new HashMap<>();
public Publisher publisherFor(String topicName) {
if (publisherMap.containsKey(topicName)) {
return publisherMap.get(topicName);
} else {
PublisherImpl publisherImpl = new PublisherImpl(
topicName, serviceLocatorProvider.get(), actorSystemProvider.get(),
materializerProvider.get(), applicationLifecycleProvider.get());
publisherMap.put(topicName, publisherImpl);
return publisherImpl;
}
}
}
You'd probably want to make the above thread-safe; in addition, you can avoid the explicit constructor call by using assisted injection (FactoryModuleBuilder) or AutoFactory, which will automatically pass through explicit parameters like topicName while injecting DI providers like ServiceLocator (which hopefully has a specific purpose, because you may not need much service-locating within a DI framework anyway!).
(Side note: Don't forget to expose your annotated binding for your PrivateModule. If you don't find yourself injecting your topicName anywhere else, you might also consider using individual #Provides methods with the assisted injection or AutoFactory approach above, but if you expect each Publisher to need a differing object graph you might choose the PrivateModule approach anyway.)
Guice's approach to dependency injection is that the DI framework complements your instantiation logic, it doesn't replace it. Where it can, it will instantiate things for you, but it doesn't try to be too clever about it. It also doesn't confuse configuration (topic names) with dependency injection - it does one thing, DI, and does that one thing well. So you can't use it to configure things, the way you can with Spring for example.
So if you want to instantiate an object with two different parameters, then you instantiate that object with two different parameters - ie, you invoke new twice. This can be done by using provider methods, which are documented here:
https://github.com/google/guice/wiki/ProvidesMethods
In your case, it might look something like adding the following method to your module:
#Provides
#Named("publisherOne")
#Singleton
Publisher providePublisherOne(ServiceLocator serviceLocator,
ActorSystem actorSystem,
Materializer materializer,
ApplicationLifecycle applicationLifecycle) {
return new PublisherImpl("topicOne", serviceLocator,
actorSystem, materializer, applicationLifecycle);
}
Also, you probably want it to be a singleton if you're adding a lifecycle hook, otherwise you could run into memory leaks each time you add a new hook every time it's instantiated.
I am new to this so I appreciate the help. I am using Castle Windsor as my container with XML config. For several of my core services this works perfectly, I simply declare a public property named the same thing and it injects it as expected. Most of my core services have no-arg constructors, those ones work out of the box. But what about if I have a core service that itself has it's own dependencies, how best to deal with that? For example, say I have a configurable message queuing service:
public interface IQueueService {
void SendMessage(string msg);
}
public class SQSService : IQueueService {
private ServiceConfig _config;
public SQSService(ServiceConfig config) {
_config = config;
}
public void SendMessage(string msg){
//do message stuff
}
}
SQSService itself requires a config to initialize properly (endpoint, port, etc). Is there an easy way to configure the DI to resolve this config? Or am I better off re-factoring the SQSService to not have this dependency?
When injecting something that is dependent on a config, session, request, etc., you have the flexibility to break away from making your dependency object have the same structure as the underlying source (in fact, you should as much as possible, otherwise you may end up accidentally writing code that implicitly depends on that structure). Inject the properties you need, rather than the config itself. I am not sure how to accomplish this using the XML config, but I know the fluent API allows for injection using .FromAppSettings(), or you can use the web/app.config to house your config, using .FromAppConfig() as explained here:
How to instantiate a class based on web.config file with Castle Windsor?
I want to inject a custom connection string into my EF context instead of using the connection string in my web.config. The idea is to move all database related logic off of my MVC project into a separate layer. I also want this layer to be responsible for the proper connection strings instead of my web applications.
The services currently using the context are calling the default constructor:
using (var context = new MyDbContext()) {
//...
}
The default constructor is internally calling DbContext with the name of the connection string from the web.config:
public partial class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public MyDbContext()
: base("name=MyDbContext")
{
}
//...
}
In order to inject my custom connection string I would need an overloaded constructor which takes the connection string as an argument. Unfortunately there is not such a constructor provided.
It is obvious that adding the constructor overload manually right inside the MyDbContext class would be a very bad idea, since this class is auto-generated and will be overwritten any time soon. Let's not talk about this any more, it's forbidden. Period.
Since MyDbContext is a partial class, one could add the additional constructor in a separate class file partial class MyDbContext, but this seems smelly either. I don't know why, but my brain says bad idea.
After some investigation I found out, that one can tell EF to include this additional constructor by editing the T4 template Model.Context.tt which is a mix of C# and some template markup. Here is the original constructor:
public <#=Code.Escape(container)#>()
: base("name=<#=container.Name#>")
{
<#
WriteLazyLoadingEnabled(container);
#>
}
It is obviously easy to add similar logic to generate an overloaded constructor containing the connection string:
public <#=Code.Escape(container)#>(string nameOrConnectionString)
: base(nameOrConnectionString)
{
<#
WriteLazyLoadingEnabled(container);
#>
}
I tried this and noticed, that both re-generating the model classes and updating the model from DB will not affect the T4 template, thus the additional constructor will always be there. Good! At first glance this looks like a suitable solution, but...
And here is my question: Is that really a good solution?
Let's compare the three options again:
Edit the auto-generated class (ok, we agreed to forget about this)
Add the constructor in a partial class file
Edit the T4 template to tell EF to generate the additional constructor
From these three options the third seems to me to be the most convenient and clean solution. What is your opinion? Has someone a good reason, why this would be a bad idea? Are there more options to inject connection strings, maybe using a custom connectionFactory? If so, how would I do that?
Like #shaft proposed, I replaced my T4 template approach to using a partial class. As it turned out, this is indeed a lot simpler and intuitive, than any other solution I currently know of.
The auto-generated class looks like:
public partial class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public MyDbContext() : base("name=MyDbContext")
{
}
//...
}
I just added another partial class of the same name. Issue solved.
public partial class MyDbContext
{
public MyDbContext(string nameOrConnectionString)
: base(nameOrConnectionString)
{
}
}
From the 3 options you provide I'd rather choose option 2. Hasn't the partial keyword been introduced to solve the problem with autogenerated files? Using T4 templates brings additional complexity in my opinion, the maintaining developer has than to understand one more thing (Not everyone is familiar with T4), but extending a partial class is more standard c# development.
However I don't know the answer to 'is there a really good solution". Introducing a factory brings again new code to maintain, test and to understand, I am not sure this abstraction helps here because the factory itself would need to instantiate the dbcontext with the appropriate constructor (which you have to provide anyway).
Edit:
Just thought about it once more: the factory might be useful to resolve the connection string from another location (you said that you don't want the connectionstring in web.config), but that still doesn't solve the constructor problem
Browsing the nuget library, i came across Ninject.Extensions.Logging.nlog2. Some googling and trying to figure things out, I can't seem to find how or why you would use this extension.
Is it advisable to use with MVC 3?
What exactly is the point?
How do you use it?
It's really very simple; both NLog and log4net expect you to use singleton/static references to obtain logger instances:
private static Logger logger = LogManager.GetCurrentClassLogger();
This is widely considered to be an anti-pattern, but even if you have no problem with it, it's still going against the grain if you're trying to implement dependency injection. In the case of NLog it's not even an ILog or ILogger interface like log4net, it's an actual class. That carries certain disadvantages such as the inability to create proxies, deferred loading, caching, etc.
What the Ninject.Extensions.Logging project does is first provide an abstract ILogger class with simple methods like Info, Error, etc., so you can inject it as a dependency and switch the logging framework if you want:
public class WidgetProvider
{
private readonly ILogger log;
public WidgetProvider(ILogger log)
{
this.log = log;
}
}
This is how DI is supposed to work - a class never goes out to grab its own dependencies, instead they're supplied by the constructor or caller as above. Assuming you've already integrated Ninject itself into your project, that's really all you have to do, there is no additional work.
As for what Ninject.Extensions.Logging.NLog2 does specifically - it just provides an implementation for Ninject.Extensions.Logging based on NLog2. The base Logging library doesn't actually contain any implementations of ILogger, you have to plug in one of the specific libraries (NLog, NLog2, or log4net) in order to get it to work.
If you switch your DI library more often than you switch loggers then don't bother with it. But if you're like me and use Ninject in almost every project, then it's a nice way to decouple your code from any specific logging library.
If you want to use dependency injection via the constructor you can pass the ILoggerFactory interface.
This is how I did it.
using Ninject.Extensions.Logging;
public class MyClass
{
private readonly ILogger _log;
public MyClass(ILoggerFactory logFactory)
{
_log = logFactory.GetCurrentClassLogger();
}
public void DoWork()
{
_log.Info("Doing work!");
}
}
Problem solved!
Hope this helps someone.
I'm practicing DDD with ASP.NET MVC and come to a situation where my controllers have many dependencies on different services and repositories, and testing becomes very tedious.
In general, I have a service or repository for each aggregate root. Consider a page which will list a customer, along with it's orders and a dropdown of different packages and sellers. All of those types are aggregate roots. For this to work, I need a CustomerService, OrderService, PackageRepository and a UserRepository. Like this:
public class OrderController {
public OrderController(Customerservice customerService,
OrderService orderService, Repository<Package> packageRepository,
Repository<User> userRepository)
{
_customerService = customerService
..
}
}
Imagine the number of dependencies and constructor parameters required to render a more complex view.
Maybe I'm approaching my service layer wrong; I could have a CustomerService which takes care of all this, but my service constructor will then explode. I think I'm violating SRP too much.
I think I'm violating SRP too much.
Bingo.
I find that using a command processing layer makes my applications architecture cleaner and more consistent.
Basically, each service method becomes a command handler class (and the method parameters become a command class), and every query is also its own class.
This won't actually reduce your dependencies - your query will likely still require those same couple of services and repositories to provide the correct data; however, when using an IoC framework like Ninject or Spring it won't matter because they will inject what is needed up the whole chain - and testing should be much easier as a dependency on a specific query is easier to fill and test than a dependency on a service class with many marginally related methods.
Also, now the relationship between the Controller and its dependencies is clear, logic has been removed from the Controller, and the query and command classes are more focused on their individual responsibilities.
Yes, this does cause a bit of an explosion of classes and files. Employing proper Object Oriented Programming will tend to do that. But, frankly, what's easier to find/organize/manage - a function in a file of dozens of other semi-related functions or a single file in a directory of dozens of semi-related files. I think that latter hands down.
Code Better had a blog post recently that nearly matches my preferred way of organizing controllers and commands in an MVC app.
Well you can solve this issue easily by using the RenderAction. Just create separate controllers or introduce child actions in those controllers. Now in the main view call render actions with the required parameters. This will give you a nice composite view.
Why not have a service for this scenario to return a view model for you? That way you only have one dependency in the controller although your service may have the separate dependencies
the book dependency injection in .net suggests introducing "facade services" where you'd group related services together then inject the facade instead if you feel like you have too many constructor parameters.
Update: I finally had some available time, so I ended up finally creating an implementation for what I was talking about in my post below. My implementation is:
public class WindsorServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
protected IWindsorContainer _container;
public WindsorServiceFactory(IWindsorContainer windsorContainer)
{
_container = windsorContainer;
}
public ServiceType GetService<ServiceType>() where ServiceType : class
{
// Use windsor to resolve the service class. If the dependency can't be resolved throw an exception
try { return _container.Resolve<ServiceType>(); }
catch (ComponentNotFoundException) { throw new ServiceNotFoundException(typeof(ServiceType)); }
}
}
All that is needed now is to pass my IServiceFactory into my controller constructors, and I am now able to keep my constructors clean while still allowing easy (and flexible) unit tests. More details can be found at my blog blog if you are interested.
I have noticed the same issue creeping up in my MVC app, and your question got me thinking of how I want to handle this. As I'm using a command and query approach (where each action or query is a separate service class) my controllers are already getting out of hand, and will probably be even worse later on.
After thinking about this I think the route I am going to look at going is to create a SerivceFactory class, which would look like:
public class ServiceFactory
{
public ServiceFactory( UserService userService, CustomerService customerService, etc...)
{
// Code to set private service references here
}
public T GetService<T>(Type serviceType) where T : IService
{
// Determine if serviceType is a valid service type,
// and return the instantiated version of that service class
// otherwise throw error
}
}
Note that I wrote this up in Notepad++ off hand so I am pretty sure I got the generics part of the GetService method syntactically wrong , but that's the general idea. So then your controller will end up looking like this:
public class OrderController {
public OrderController(ServiceFactory factory) {
_factory = factory;
}
}
You would then have IoC instantiate your ServiceFactory instance, and everything should work as expected.
The good part about this is that if you realize that you have to use the ProductService class in your controller, you don't have to mess with controller's constructor at all, you only have to just call _factory.GetService() for your intended service in the action method.
Finally, this approach allows you to still mock services out (one of the big reasons for using IoC and passing them straight into the controller's constructor) by just creating a new ServiceFactory in your test code with the mocked services passed in (the rest left as null).
I think this will keep a good balance out the best world of flexibility and testability, and keeps service instantiation in one spot.
After typing this all out I'm actually excited to go home and implement this in my app :)