I've just started learning F# and I'm using it with Monogame to create a simple game to help myself learn the various features of the language. I've hit a roadblock trying to access my game class from outside because the Monogame Game class defines the methods as protected. Trying to do a public override of the method throws an error, telling me setting an accessibility modifiers are not permitted.
Base Class Defined in C#
public class Base
{
protected virtual void Method()
{
//...
}
}
Public Override in F#
type Game as game =
inherit Base()
//Error: Accessibility modifiers are not permitted on overrides or interface implementations
override public game.Method =
//...
()
Q: What is the correct way to do a public F# override of an inherited protected C# method?
Changing accessibility on overrides is not allowed, in either F# or C#. Based on #Endjru's, the best approach is to use a wrapper method that is public to call the protected method;
type Game as game =
inherit Base()
override game.Method =
//...
()
member game.PublicMethod = game.Method
Related
tldr: Is there any way I can choose which constructor to use when I register a type?
I have followed the instructions to create a platform specific inversion of control as outlined in Inversion of control.
In your core project, you can declare an interface and you can use
that interface in your classes there ...
In each UI project, you can then declare the platform-specific
implementation ...
You can then register these implementations in each of the
platform-specific Setup files - e.g. you could override
MvxSetup.InitializeFirstChance
So in my core project I have defined the following interface
public interface IJob
{
void AddAction(Action action);
}
In my Android project I have implemented the interface as follows
public class CustomJob: Job, IJob
{
private Action _action;
public CustomJob(IntPtr javaReference, JniHandleOwnership transfer) : base(javaReference, transfer)
{
}
public CustomJob() : base(new Params
(Jobs.Priority.MID
).RequireNetwork().Persist())
{
//_action = action;
}
public override void OnAdded()
{
}
protected override void OnCancel(int p0, Throwable p1)
{
}
public override void OnRun()
{
_action.Invoke();
}
protected override RetryConstraint ShouldReRunOnThrowable(Throwable p0, int p1, int p2)
{
return RetryConstraint.Cancel;
}
public void AddAction(Action action)
{
_action = action;
}
}
And I overrode the implementation of InitializeFirstChance in Setup.cs
protected override void InitializeFirstChance()
{
Mvx.IoCProvider.RegisterType<IJob, CustomJob>();
base.InitializeFirstChance();
}
However, I get the following stacktrace at runtime
{MvvmCross.Exceptions.MvxIoCResolveException: Failed to resolve
parameter for parameter javaReference of type IntPtr when creating
CustomJob. You may pass it as an argument at
MvvmCross.IoC.MvxIoCContainer.GetIoCParameterValues (System.Type type,
System.Reflection.ConstructorInfo firstConstructor,
System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary2[TKey,TValue] arguments)
[0x0005a] in
C:\projects\mvvmcross\MvvmCross\IoC\MvxIoCContainer.cs:648 at
MvvmCross.IoC.MvxIoCContainer.IoCConstruct (System.Type type,
System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary2[TKey,TValue] arguments)
[0x00031] in
C:\projects\mvvmcross\MvvmCross\IoC\MvxIoCContainer.cs:413
Is there any way I can choose which constructor to use when I register a type? Thank you.
AFAIK you can't choose which constructor the Mvx's IoC engine will choose.
So one way is to make another class that implements your IJob that has a reference to Job internally and in the implementation of the class you pass the action to the Job implementation.
public class JobHandler : IJob
{
private Job _customJob;
public JobHandler()
{
this._customJob = new CustomJob();
}
public void AddAction(Action action)
{
this._customJob.AddAction(action);
}
}
If you want you can do an IJobHandler that inherits IJob so that you can use that interface for the JobHandler implementations and the IJob for you actual Job
Another way is to add stub parameters to the parameterless constructor so that it takes more parameters than the other and gets elected by the IoC engine (I'm not entirely sure that it would work, but I think so). But it is a bit messy.
Another way is you to tell the IoC engine how you want to construct your IJob:
Mvx.IoCProvider.RegisterType<IJob>(() => new CustomJob());
HIH
There is an interface DCE, which is implemented by a class DCEImpl which has a dependency, say, string S, which it gets via its constructor.
The universe of S is limited, say S can only take values {'A','B','C'}.
There is an already existing Guice module that accepts the value of S in its constructor, and then binds the interface DCE to the correctly initialized version of DCEImpl.
public class DCEModule extends AbstractModule {
private final String s;
public DCEModule(String s){
this.s = s;
}
protected void configure() {
bind(DCE.class).toInstance(new DCEImpl(s));
}
}
Now I have a class C which needs a List<DCE> with all the 3 implementations (actually a lot more than 3, using 3 for example purpose).
I want to inject this list via Guice in C. To do that, I created a new module DCEPModule, which will provide a List<DCE> in this way:
#Provides
List<DCE> getDCE() {
for(String s: S){
Module m = new DCEModule(s);
install(m);
Injector injector = Guice.createInjector(m);
listDomains.add(injector.getInstance(DCE.class));
}
}
My problem is that I don't want to call a new injector in this module, because DCEPModule will be installed by a different module.
public class NewModule extends AbstractModule {
protected void configure() {
install(DCEPModule);
}
}
I want a way to get the List<DCE> without explicitly creating a new injector in DCEPModule.
You can achieve this by using a Multibinder (javadoc, wiki).
Here’s an example:
public class SnacksModule extends AbstractModule {
protected void configure(){
Multibinder<Snack> multibinder = Multibinder.newSetBinder(binder(), Snack.class);
multibinder.addBinding().toInstance(new Twix());
multibinder.addBinding().toProvider(SnickersProvider.class);
multibinder.addBinding().to(Skittles.class);
}
}
Now, the multibinder will provide a Set<Snack>. If you absolutely need a List instead of a Set, then you can add a method to your module like this:
#Provides
public List<Snack> getSnackList(Set<Snack> snackSet) {
return new ArrayList(snackSet);
}
You can add implementations to the same Multibinding in more than one module. When you call Multibinder.newSetBinder(binder, type) it doesn’t necessarily create a new Multibinding. If a Multibinding already exists for for that type, then you will get the existing Multibinding.
I am using Ninject version 3 in an MVVM-type scenario in a .NET WPF application. In a particular instance I am using a class to act as coordinator between the view and its view model, meaning the coordinator class is created first and the view and view model (along with other needed services) are injected into it.
I have bindings for the services, but I have not created explicit bindings for the view/view model classes, instead relying on Ninject's implicit self-binding since these are concrete types and not interfaces.
A conceptual version of this scenario in a console app is shown below:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StandardKernel kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Bind<IViewService>().To<ViewService>();
//kernel.Bind<View>().ToSelf();
//kernel.Bind<ViewModel>().ToSelf();
ViewCoordinator viewCoordinator = kernel.Get<ViewCoordinator>();
}
}
public class View
{
}
public class ViewModel
{
}
public interface IViewService
{
}
public class ViewService : IViewService
{
}
public class ViewCoordinator
{
public ViewCoordinator()
{
}
public ViewCoordinator(View view, ViewModel viewModel, IViewService viewService)
{
}
}
If you run this code as-is, the kernel.Get<> call will instantiate the ViewCoordinator class using the parameterless constructor instead of the one with the dependencies. However, if you remove the parameterless constructor, Ninject will successfully instantiate the class with the other constructor. This is surprising since Ninject will typically use the constructor with the most arguments that it can satisfy.
Clearly it can satisfy them all thanks to implicit self-binding. But if it doesn't have an explicit binding for one of the arguments it seems to first look for alternate constructors it can use before checking to see if it can use implicit self-binding. If you uncomment the explicit Bind<>().ToSelf() lines, the ViewController class will instantiate correctly even if the parameterless constructor is present.
I don't really want to have to add explicit self-bindings for all the views and view models that may need this (even though I know that burden can be lessened by using convention-based registration). Is this behavior by design? Is there any way to tell Ninject to check for implicit self-binding before checking for other usable constructors?
UPDATE
Based on cvbarros' answer I was able to get this to work by doing my own implementation of IConstructorScorer. Here's the changes I made to the existing code to get it to work:
using Ninject.Selection.Heuristics;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
StandardKernel kernel = new StandardKernel();
kernel.Components.RemoveAll<IConstructorScorer>();
kernel.Components.Add<IConstructorScorer, MyConstructorScorer>();
kernel.Bind<IViewService>().To<ViewService>();
ViewCoordinator viewCoordinator = kernel.Get<ViewCoordinator>();
}
}
using System.Collections;
using System.Linq;
using Ninject.Activation;
using Ninject.Planning.Targets;
using Ninject.Selection.Heuristics;
public class MyConstructorScorer : StandardConstructorScorer
{
protected override bool BindingExists(IContext context, ITarget target)
{
bool bindingExists = base.BindingExists(context, target);
if (!(bindingExists))
{
Type targetType = this.GetTargetType(target);
bindingExists = (
!targetType.IsInterface
&& !targetType.IsAbstract
&& !targetType.IsValueType
&& targetType != typeof(string)
&& !targetType.ContainsGenericParameters
);
}
return bindingExists;
}
private Type GetTargetType(ITarget target)
{
var targetType = target.Type;
if (targetType.IsArray)
{
targetType = targetType.GetElementType();
}
if (targetType.IsGenericType && targetType.GetInterfaces().Any(type => type == typeof(IEnumerable)))
{
targetType = targetType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
}
return targetType;
}
}
The new scorer just sees if a BindingExists call failed by overriding the BindingExists method and if so it checks to see if the type is implicitly self-bindable. If it is, it returns true which indicates to Ninject that there is a valid binding for that type.
The code making this check is copied from the SelfBindingResolver class in the Ninject source code. The GetTargetType code had to be copied from the StandardConstructorScorer since it's declared there as private instead of protected.
My application is now working correctly and so far I haven't seen any negative side effects from making this change. Although if anyone knows of any problems this could cause I would welcome further input.
By default, Ninject will use the constructor with most bindings available if and only if those bindings are defined (in your case they are implicit). Self-bindable types do not weight when selecting which constructor to use.
You can mark which constructor you want to use by applying the [Inject] attribute to it, this will ensure that constructor is selected.
If you don't want that, you can examine StandardConstructorScorer to see if that will fit your needs. If not, you can replace the IConstructorScorer component of the Kernel with your own implementation.
Preliminaries
I'm using Ninject.MVC3 2.2.2.0 Nuget Package for injecting into my controller an implementation of a IDomain Interface that separates my Business Logic (BL) using an Factory approach.
I'm registering my Ninject Modules in the preconfigured NinjectMVC3.cs using:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
var modules = new INinjectModule[]
{
new DomainBLModule(),
new ADOModule()
};
kernel.Load(modules);
}
I'm trying to avoid the fatal curse of the diabolic Service Locator anti-pattern.
The Domain Class uses a DBContext that i'm trying to inject an interface implementation too, via an IDBContext, with the following scenario:
IDomainBLFactory:
public interface IDomainBLFactory
{
DomainBL CreateNew();
}
DomainBLFactory:
public class DomainBLFactory : IDomainBLFactory
{
public DomainBL CreateNew()
{
return new DomainBL();
}
}
In the controller's namespace:
public class DomainBLModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IDomainBLFactory>().To<DomainBLFactory>().InRequestScope();
}
}
At this point i can inject the IDomainBLFactory implementation into my controller using Ninject Constructor Injection without any problem:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IDomainBLFactory DomainBLFactory;
// Default Injected Constructor
public MyController(IDomainBLFactory DomainBLFactory)
{
this.DomainBLFactory = DomainBLFactory;
}
... (use the Domain for performing tasks/commands with the Database Context)
}
Now my central problem.
In the DomainBL implementation, i will inject the dependency to a particular DBContext, in this case ADO DBContext from Entity Framework, again, using a IDBContextFactory:
IDbDataContextFactory
public interface IDbDataContextFactory
{
myADOEntities CreateNew();
}
DbDataContextFactory
public class DbDataContextFactory : IDbDataContextFactory
{
public myADOEntities CreateNew()
{
return new myADOEntities ();
}
}
ADOModule
public class ADOModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IDbDataContextFactory>().To<DbDataContextFactory>().InRequestScope();
}
}
Now in the DomainBL implementation I faced the problem of injecting the necessary interface for the DBContext Object Factory:
public class DomainBL
{
private readonly IDbDataContextFactory contextFactory;
**** OPS, i tried to understand about 10+ Stackoverflow articles ***
...
}
What have I tried?
To Use the constructor Injection. But I don't know what to inject in the call for the Factory CreateNew() in the IDBContextFactory. For clear:
public class DomainBLFactory: IDomainBLFactory
{
// Here the constructor requires one argument for passing the factory impl.
public DomainBL CreateNew()
{
return new DomainBL(?????) // I need a IDBContextFactory impl to resolve.
//It's not like in the MVC Controller where injection takes place internally
//for the controller constructor. I'm outside a controller
}
}
In this Useful Post, our unique true friend Remo Gloor describes in a comment a possible solution for me, citing: "Create an interface that has a CreateSomething method that takes everything you need to create the instance and have it return the instance. Then in your configuration you implement this interface and add an IResolutionRoot to its constructor and use this instace to Get the required object."
Questions: How do I implement this in a proper way using Ninject.MVC3 and my modest Domain Class approach? How do I Resolve the IResolutionRoot without be punished for relaying in the Service Locator anti-pattern?
To Use the property injection for an IDBContexFactory. In the course of learning and reading all the contradictory points of view plus the theoretical explanations about it, I can deduce it's not a proper way of doing the injection for my DBContexFactory class code. Nevermind. It doesn't work anyway.
public class DomainBL
{
[Inject]
public IDbDataContextFactory contextFactory
{
get;
set;
}
//Doesn't works, contextFactory is null with or without parameterless constructor
.... (methods that uses contextFactory.CreateNew()....
}
Question: What am I missing? Even if this approach is wrong the property is not injecting.
Be cursed. Use a DependencyResolver and live with the stigmata. This works and I will remain in this approach until a proper solution appears for me. And this is really frustrating because the lack of knowledge in my last 10 days effort trying to understand and do things right.
public class DomainBL
{
private readonly IDbDataContextFactory contextFactory;
this.contextFactory = DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IDbDataContextFactory>();
//So sweet, it works.. but i'm a sinner.
}
Question: Is there a big mistake in my understanding of the Factory Approach for the injection of interfaced implementations and using a Domain Driven Approach for taking apart the Business Logic? In the case I'm wrong, what stack of patterns should I implement with confidence?
I saw before a really big quantity of articles and blogs that does not ask this important question in a open a clear way.
Remo Gloor introduces the Ninject.Extensions.Factory for the Ninject 3.0.0 RC in www.planetgeek.ch/2011/12/31/ninject-extensions-factory-introduction.
Question: Will this extension work coupled with Ninject.MVC3 for general porpouse?. In such case it should be my hope for the near future.
Thank you all in advance for your guidance and remember we appreciate your kind help. I think a lot of people will find this scenario useful too.
I don't really get the purpose of your factories. Normally, you have exactly one ObjectContext instance for one request. This means you don't need the factory and can simply bind myADOEntities in Request scope and inject it into your DomainBL without adding the factories:
Bind<myADOEntities>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
Bind<DomainBL>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
And Yes the factory and mvc extrensions work together.
Here's an implementation of a generic IFactory to solve the problem without resorting to the ServiceLocator anti-pattern.
First you define a nice generic factory interface
public interface IFactory<T>
{
T CreateNew();
}
And define the implementation which uses ninject kernel to create the objects requested
class NinjectFactory<T> : IFactory<T>
{
private IKernel Kernel;
public NinjectFactory( IKernel Kernel )
{
this.Kernel = Kernel;
}
public T CreateNew()
{
return Kernel.Get<T>();
}
}
Binding to your factory using the following
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<myADOEntities>().ToSelf();
kernel.Bind<DomainBL>().ToSelf();
kernel.Bind(typeof(IFactory<>)).To(typeof(NinjectFactory<>));
}
You can now do the following in your controller.
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IFactory<DomainBL> DomainBLFactory;
public MyController( IFactory<DomainBL> DomainBLFactory )
{
this.DomainBLFactory = DomainBLFactory;
}
// ... (use the Domain for performing tasks/commands with the Database Context)
}
And in your DomainBL
public class DomainBL
{
IFactory<myADOEntities> EntitiesFactory;
public DomainBL( IFactory<myADOEntities> EntitiesFactory )
{
this.EntitiesFactory = EntitiesFactory;
}
// ... (use the Entities factory whenever you need to create a Domain Context)
}
I'm using Ninject 2.0 to handle DI in one of my apps and I've come across something that's confusing me. Having zero documentation doesn't help too much either to be honest.
Say I have a constructor with the signature -
ctor(IServiceFactory factory1, IServiceFactory factory2)
{
this.factory1 = factory1;
this.factory2 = factory2;
}
Although these two services implement the same interface, they are quite different implementations and are used at different times so I don't want to inject an IEnumerable<IServiceFactory>.
My question is, when I'm binding the instances, how do I tell Ninject what to inject for each?
Thanks in advance.
Update
For the sake of anyone wanting to see the code would end up after reading Remo's links,...Here it is in brief. (I never realised C# had parameter attributes!)
//abstract factory
public interface IServiceFactory
{
Service Create();
}
//concrete factories
public class Service1Factory : IServiceFactory
{
public IService Create()
{
return new Service1();
}
}
public class Service2Factory : IServiceFactory
{
public IService Create()
{
return new Service2();
}
}
//Binding Module (in composition root)
public class ServiceFactoryModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IServiceFactory>()
.To<Service1Factory>()
.Named("Service1");
Bind<IServiceFactory>()
.To<Service2Factory>()
.Named("Service2");
}
}
//consumer of bindings
public class Consumer(
[Named("Service1")] service1Factory,
[Named("Service2")] service2Factory)
{
}
First of all you have to ask yourself if using the same interface is correct if the implementations need to do a completely different thing. Normally, the interface is the contract between the consumer and the implementation. So if the consumer expects different things then you might consider to define different interfaces.
If you decide to stay with the same interface than you have to use conditional bindings. See the documentation about how this is done:
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Contextual-Binding
https://github.com/ninject/ninject/wiki/Conventions-Based-Binding