Can we create a Custom LifeCycle using StructureMap wherein the object has to be in Singleton scope for specified preiod of time, after which the object has to be created again. In short, can we create objects every 20 or 30 mins.
Sure, see e.g. http://www.mikeobrien.net/blog/creating-structuremap-lifecycle-for-wcf/ for an example of how to implement ILifecycle (in this case backed by WCF, but you can just as well make it thread-local, or static). You'll just have to add the logic to return a new IObjectCache instance after x minutes have passed.
Copy/paste of the code there:
public class WcfOperationLifecycle : ILifecycle
{
public static readonly string ITEM_NAME = "STRUCTUREMAP-INSTANCES";
public void EjectAll()
{
FindCache().DisposeAndClear();
}
public IObjectCache FindCache()
{
if (!OperationContext.Current.OutgoingMessageProperties.ContainsKey(ITEM_NAME))
OperationContext.Current.OutgoingMessageProperties.Add(ITEM_NAME, new MainObjectCache());
return (IObjectCache)OperationContext.Current.OutgoingMessageProperties[ITEM_NAME];
}
public string Scope { get { return "WcfOperationLifecycle"; } }
}
Related
I need to find a way to get an instance of DataProcessingEngine without calling it's constractor.
I am trying to find a way to do so using the registered DataProcessingEngine in composition object (please see the following code). But I could not find a way to do so.
Anyone have a suggestion? Thanks in advance.
public class Composer : IUserComposer
{
public void Compose(Composition composition)
{
composition.Register<IDataProcessingEngine, DataProcessingEngine>(Lifetime.Singleton);
//DataProcessingEngine dataProcessing = compostion.Resolve<IDataProcessingEngine>()??//no resolve function exists in Umbraco.Core.Composing
SaveImagesThread(dataProcessingEngine);
}
public Task SaveImagesThread(IDataProcessingEngine dataProcessingEngine)//TODO - decide async
{
string dataTimerTime = WebConfig.SaveProductsDataTimer;
double time = GetTimeForTimer(dataTimerTime);
if (time > 0)
{
var aTimer = new System.Timers.Timer(time);
aTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(dataProcessingEngine.SaveImages);
aTimer.Start();
}
return default;
}
}
For all of you who are looking for a way to call a function (that's defined in another class in your code, an Engine or ...) from the composer(where the app starts) and want to avoid calling this function's class' constractor. I've found another way to do so:
public class QueuePollingHandler
{
[RuntimeLevel(MinLevel = RuntimeLevel.Run)]
public class SubscribeToQueuePollingHandlerComponentComposer :
ComponentComposer<SubscribeToQueuePollingHandler>
{ }
public class SubscribeToQueuePollingHandler : IComponent
{
private readonly IDataProcessingEngine _dataProcessingEngine;
public SubscribeToQueuePollingHandler(IDataProcessingEngine
dataProcessingEngine)
{
_dataProcessingEngine = dataProcessingEngine;
SaveImagesThread(_dataProcessingEngine);
}
public void SaveImagesThread(IDataProcessingEngine
dataProcessingEngine)
{
....
}
}
And the logic explenation: You create a class (SubscribeToQueuePollingHandlerComponentComposer from the example) and define its base class to be ComponentComposer<Class_that_inherits_IComponent>.
And when you start the application you could see that it gets to the registered class' constractor (SubscribeToQueuePollingHandler constructor).
That's the way that I found to be able to call a function right when the application starts without needing to call its class constractor and actualy use dependency injection.
Need some help trying to solve a problem resolving an implementation of a service at runtime based on a parameter. In other words use a factory pattern with DI.
We have Autofac wired in to our MVC application. I am trying to figure out how we can use a user session variable (Call it Ordering Type) to be used for the Dependency Resolver to resolve the correct implementation of a service.
An example of what we are trying to do.
The application has two "types" of ordering - real eCommerce type of ordering (add stuff to a shopping cart, checkout etc).
The other is called Forecast ordering. Users create orders - but they do not get fulfilled right away. They go through an approval process and then fulfilled.
The bottom line is the data schema and back end systems the application talks to changes based on the order type.
What I want to do is:
I have IOrderManagerService
public interface IOrderManagerService
{
Order GetOrder(int orderNumber);
int CreateOrder(Order order);
}
Because we have two ordering "types" - I have two implementations of the the IOrderManagerService:
public class ShelfOrderManager : IOrderManagerService
{
public Order GetOrder(int orderMumber)
{
...code
}
public int CreateOrder(Order order)
{
...code
}
}
and
public class ForecastOrderManager: IOrderManagerService
{
public Order GetOrder(int orderMumber)
{
...code
}
public int CreateOrder(Order order)
{
...code
}
}
My First question is - in my MVC application - do I register these implementations as?
builder.RegisterType<ShelfOrderManager>().As<IOrderManagerService>();
builder.RegisterType<ForecastOrderManager>().As<IOrderManagerService>();
What we are planning on doing is sticking the user selected ordering type in a users session. When a user wants to view order status - depending on their selected ordering "type" - I need the resolver to give the controller the correct implementation.
public class OrderStatusController : Controller
{
private readonly IOrderManagerService _orderManagerService;
public OrderStatusController(IOrderManagerService orderManagerService)
{
//This needs to be the correct implementation based on the users "type".
_orderManagerService = orderManagerService;
}
public ActionResult GetOrder(int orderNumber)
{
var model = _orderManagerService.GetOrder(orderNumber);
return View(model);
}
}
I've ready about the the delegate factory and this answer explains the concept well.
The problem is the runtime parameters are being used to construct the service and resolve at runtime. i.e.
var service = resolvedServiceClass.Factory("runtime parameter")
All this would do is give me "service" that used the "runtime parameter" in the constructor.
I've looked at Keyed or Named resolution too.
At first I thought I could combine these two techniques - but the controller has the dependency on the interface - not the concrete implementation. (as it should)
Any ideas on how to get around this would be MUCH appreciated.
As it would turn out we were close. #Andrei is on target with what we did. I'll explain the answer below for the next person that comes across this issue.
To recap the problem - I needed to resolve a specific concrete implementation of an interface using Autofac at run time. This is commonly solved by the Factory Pattern - but we already had DI implemented.
The solution was using both. Using the delegate factory Autofac supports, I created a simple factory class.
I elected to resolve the component context privately
DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IComponentContext>();
versus having Autofac resolve it predominately so I did not have to include IComponentContext in all of my constructors that that will be using the factory.
The factory will be used to resolve the services that are dependent on run time parameters - which means wherever a
ISomeServiceThatHasMultipleImplementations
is used in a constructor - I am going to replace it with ServiceFactory.Factory factory. I did not want to ALSO include IComponentContext wherever I needed the factory.
enum OrderType
{
Shelf,
Forecast
}
public class ServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
private readonly IComponentContext _componentContext;
private readonly OrderType _orderType;
public ServiceFactory(OrderType orderingType)
{
_componentContext = DependencyResolver.Current.GetService<IComponentContext>();
_orderType = orderingType;
}
public delegate ServiceFactory Factory(OrderType orderingType);
public T Resolve<T>()
{
if(!_componentContext.IsRegistered<T>())
return _componentContext.ResolveNamed<T>(_orderType.ToString());
return _componentContext.Resolve<T>();
}
}
With the factory written, we also used the Keyed services.
Using my order context -
public interface IOrderManagerService
{
Order GetOrder(int orderNumber);
int CreateOrder(Order order);
}
public class ShelfOrderManager : IOrderManagerService
{
public Order GetOrder(int orderNumber)
{
...
}
public int CreateOrder(Order order)
{
...
}
}
public class ForecastOrderManager : IOrderManagerService
{
public Order GetOrder(int orderNumber)
{
...
}
public int CreateOrder(Order order)
{
...
}
}
The registration of Keyed services:
//register the shelf implementation
builder.RegisterType<ShelfOrderManager>()
.Keyed(OrderType.Shelf)
.As<IOrderManager>();
//register the forecast implementation
builder.RegisterType<ForecastOrderManager>()
.Keyed(OrderType.Shelf)
.As<IOrderManager>();
Register the factory:
builder.RegisterType<IMS.POS.Services.Factory.ServiceFactory>()
.AsSelf()
.SingleInstance();
Finally using it in the controllers (or any other class for that matter):
public class HomeController : BaseController
{
private readonly IContentManagerService _contentManagerService;
private readonly IViewModelService _viewModelService;
private readonly IApplicationSettingService _applicationSettingService;
private readonly IOrderManagerService _orderManagerService;
private readonly IServiceFactory _factory;
public HomeController(ServiceFactory.Factory factory,
IViewModelService viewModelService,
IContentManagerService contentManagerService,
IApplicationSettingService applicationSettingService)
{
//first assign the factory
//We keep the users Ordering Type in session - if the value is not set - default to Shelf ordering
_factory = factory(UIUserSession?.OrderingMode ?? OrderType.Shelf);
//now that I have a factory to get the implementation I need
_orderManagerService = _factory.Resolve<IOrderManagerService>();
//The rest of these are resolved by Autofac
_contentManagerService = contentManagerService;
_viewModelService = viewModelService;
_applicationSettingService = applicationSettingService;
}
}
I want to work out a bit more handling of the Resolve method - but for the first pass this works. A little bit Factory Pattern (where we need it) but still using Autofac to do most of the work.
I would not rely on Autofac for this. IOC is used to resolve a dependency and provide an implementation for it, what you need is to call a different implementation of the same interface based on a decision flag.
I would use a simple factory basically, like a class with 2 static methods and call whichever implementation you need need to when you know what the decision is. This gives you the run-time resolver you are after. Keep it simple I'd say.
This being said it seems there is another option. Have a look at the "select by context" option, maybe you can redesign your classes to take advantage of this: http://docs.autofac.org/en/latest/faq/select-by-context.html
How could I setup my chosen DI for this kind of setup:
public abstract class BaseRepo
{
public BaseRepo(string token)
{
}
}
public RepoA : BaseRepo, IRepoA
{
// implementation of interface here
}
public ViewModelA
{
IRepoA _repo;
public ViewModelA(IRepoA repo)
{
this._repo = repo;
}
public DoMethod()
{
this._repo.DoSomeStuff();
}
}
In real scenario, the token parameter on the base class is resolved after the user has been logged in. I was thinking of just configuring the interfaces for DI after the login but I'm not sure if that a right thing do.
I looked at some Factories but I can't make it to work.
My choice of DI probably goes to AutoFac/Ninject and the project is Xamarin mobile app
In real scenario, the token parameter on the base class is resolved
after the user has been logged in.
This means that the token parameter is runtime data. Prevent injecting runtime data into your components. Your components should be stateless. Instead, runtime data should be passed on through method calls through the previously constructed object graph of components. Failing to do so, will make it much more complicated to configure and verify your object graphs.
There are typically to ways of passing runtime data. Either you pass it on through method calls from method to method through the object graph, or your components call a method that returns that correct value. This token seems like it is contextual information and that would typically mean you choose the latter option:
public interface ITokenProvider {
string GetCurrentToken();
}
// Don't use base classes: base classes are a design smell!
public RepoA : IRepoA
{
private readonly ITokenProvider tokenProvider;
public RepoA(ITokenProvider tokenProvider) {
this.tokenProvider = tokenProvider;
}
// IRepoA methods
public A GetById(Guid id) {
// Get token at runtime
string token = this.tokenProvider.GetCurrentToken();
// Use token here.
}
}
In your Composition Root, you will have to create an implementation for this ITokenProvider. How this implementation looks is highly dependent on how you wish to store this token, but here's a possible implementation:
public sealed class AspNetSessionTokenProvider : ITokenProvider {
public string GetCurrentToken() {
return (string)HttpContext.Current.Session["token"];
}
}
Imagine there is a Customer class with an instance Load() method.
When the Load() method is called, it retrieves order details by e.g.
var orders = Order.GetAll(customerId, ...);
GetAll() is a static method of the Order class and the input parameters are fields defined in the Customer class.
As you can see, Order is a dependency of the Customer class, however, I can't just create an IOrder and inject it there as interfaces can't have static methods.
Therefore, the question is how could I introduce dependency injection in this example?
I don't want to make GetAll() an instance method since it's a static method and need to keep it that way.
For example, I have used utility classes in my design, most of which just contain static methods.
If you must keep the static method, I would wrap the static calls in a Repository object.
Like this:
interface IOrderRepository {
IEnumerable<IOrder> GetAll(customerId, ..);
}
class OrderRepository : IOrderRepository {
IEnumerable<IOrder> GetAll(customerId, ...)
{
Order.GetAll(customerId,...); // The original static call.
}
}
Now you inject this repository into your Customer class.
(I'm assuming you're doing this so you can inject fake IOrders at runtime for testing purposes. I should say that in general, static methods are a serious obstacle to testing.)
Seeing as your aggregate root for fetching orders is your customer model I would strongly advise you create a customer repository and inject that to whatever service requires it.
Here is an example:
public class CustomerService
{
private readonly ICustomerRepository _customerRepository;
public CustomerService(ICustomerRepository customerRepository)
{
if (customerRepository == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("customerRepository");
}
_customerRepository = customerRepository;
}
public IEnumerable<IOrder> GetOrdersForCustomerId(int customerId)
{
return _customerRepository.GetOrdersForCustomerId(customerId);
}
}
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
IEnumerable<IOrder> GetOrdersForCustomerId(int customerId);
}
class CustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository
{
public IEnumerable<IOrder> GetOrdersForCustomerId(int customerId)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
Function Pointer Injection
TLDR:
Inject a function pointer into the Customer class. The value of this function pointer can be Order.GetAll in production, and MockOrder.GetAll in tests.
EXAMPLE:
The dependency (problematic static function we depend on):
class Order {
static func GetAll() -> [Order] {
var orders = ... // Load from production source
return orders
}
}
Our dependent class (depends on static function):
class Customer {
func Init(getAllOrdersFunction) { // Arg is a func pointer
self.getAllOrdersFunction = getAllOrdersFunction
}
func Load() {
var orders = self.getAllOrdersFunction()
// Do stuff...
}
}
Production client class (performs the dependency injection):
class BusinessLogicManager {
func DoBusinessLogic() {
var customer = Customer(Order.GetAll) // Prod func injected here
customer.Load()
// Do stuff...
}
}
Testing client class (how unit test can inject a fake dependency):
class CustomerUnitTests {
static func GetFakeOrders() {
var orders = ... // Hardcoded test data
return orders
}
func TestLoad() {
var customer = Customer(CustomerUnitTests.GetFakeOrders) // Fake func injected here
customer.Load()
// Verify results given known behavior of GetFakeOrders
}
}
DISCUSSION:
How you actually inject the "function pointer" will depend on the syntax and features available in your language. Here I'm just talking about the general concept.
This isn't exactly a pretty solution. It would probably be easier if you can change GetAll to be an instance method (perhaps by introducing an OrdersLoader object, or by using Paul Phillips' answer). But if you really want to keep it as a static function, then this solution will work.
How do I handle classes with static methods with Ninject?
That is, in C# one can not have static methods in an interface, and Ninject works on the basis of using interfaces?
My use case is a class that I would like it to have a static method to create an
unpopulated instance of itself.
EDIT 1
Just to add an example in the TopologyImp class, in the GetRootNodes() method, how would I create some iNode classes to return? Would I construct these with normal code practice or would I somehow use Ninject? But if I use the container to create then haven't I given this library knowledge of the IOC then?
public interface ITopology
{
List<INode> GetRootNodes();
}
public class TopologyImp : ITopology
{
public List<INode> GetRootNodes()
{
List<INode> result = new List<INode>();
// Need code here to create some instances, but how to without knowledge of the container?
// e.g. want to create a few INode instances and add them to the list and then return the list
}
}
public interface INode
{
// Parameters
long Id { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
class NodeImp : INode
{
public long Id
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public string Name
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
// Just background to highlight the fact I'm using Ninject fine to inject ITopology
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ITopology _top;
public Form1()
{
IKernel kernal = new StandardKernel(new TopologyModule());
_top = kernal.Get<ITopology>();
InitializeComponent();
}
}
If you're building a singleton or something of that nature and trying to inject dependencies, typically you instead write your code as a normal class, without trying to put in lots of (probably incorrect) code managing the singleton and instead register the object InSingletonScope (v2 - you didnt mention your Ninject version). Each time you do that, you have one less class that doesnt surface its dependencies.
If you're feeling especially bloody-minded and are certain that you want to go against that general flow, the main tools Ninject gives you is Kernel.Inject, which one can use after you (or someone else) has newd up an instance to inject the dependencies. But then to locate one's Kernelm you're typically going to be using a Service Locator, which is likely to cause as much of a mess as it is likely to solve.
EDIT: Thanks for following up - I see what you're after. Here's a hacky way to approximate the autofac automatic factory mechanism :-
/// <summary>
/// Ugly example of a not-very-automatic factory in Ninject
/// </summary>
class AutomaticFactoriesInNinject
{
class Node
{
}
class NodeFactory
{
public NodeFactory( Func<Node> createNode )
{
_createNode = createNode;
}
Func<Node> _createNode;
public Node GenerateTree()
{
return _createNode();
}
}
internal class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<Func<Node>>().ToMethod( context => () => Kernel.Get<Node>() );
}
}
[Fact]
public void CanGenerate()
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel( new Module() );
var result = kernel.Get<NodeFactory>().GenerateTree();
Assert.IsType<Node>( result );
}
}
The ToMethod stuff is a specific application of the ToProvider pattern -- here's how you'd do the same thing via that route:-
...
class NodeProvider : IProvider
{
public Type Type
{
get { return typeof(Node); }
}
public object Create( IContext context )
{
return context.Kernel.Get<Node>();
}
}
internal class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<Func<Node>>().ToProvider<NodeProvider>();
}
}
...
I have not thought this through though and am not recommending this as A Good Idea - there may be far better ways of structuring something like this. #Mark Seemann? :P
I believe Unity and MEF also support things in this direction (keywords: automatic factory, Func)
EDIT 2: Shorter syntax if you're willing to use container-specific attributes and drop to property injection (even if Ninject allows you to override the specific attributes, I much prefer constructor injection):
class NodeFactory
{
[Inject]
public Func<Node> NodeFactory { private get; set; }
public Node GenerateTree()
{
return NodeFactory();
}
}
EDIT 3: You also need to be aware of this Ninject Module by #Remo Gloor which is slated to be in the 2.4 release
EDIT 4: Also overlapping, but not directly relevant is the fact that in Ninject, you can request an IKernel in your ctor/properties and have that injected (but that doesn't work directly in a static method).