Looking at some of the MVC examples online, I've see that typically in a controller the DbContext variable is declared as a private member variable (i.e. global) and accessible to all the methods.
But, I recently came across an article on ASP.NET Identity, and noticed in the controller, the DbContext is declared within each method (that requires it).
Is there a security benefit to this approach? Perhaps limit the lifespan of the security object(s) for better overall security?!?!
If not, then I see the first approach being more efficient, where the database context is instantiated upon the controller loading.
Below is all I could find about DbContext, but nothing to really answer my question.
DbContext declaration - Framework 4.1 - MVC 3.0
MVC, DbContext and Multithreading
On every request, a new instance of the controller is constructed. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it does not really matter whether the dbcontext is instantiated in the constructor vs encapsulated in any given method.
Aside from a style choice, reasons to declare and contain a dbcontext in a given method is that:
Methods that do not need it will not instantiate the context, eliminating the overhead (if there is any). This can also be accomplished using a lazy initialization pattern.
The context is disposed of immediately as soon as a method is done with it, rather than at the end of the request. Generally this should not be a concern though; usually if users are waiting around for longer than a few seconds you have a bigger problem.
Different methods use different contexts.
Among others, some reasons to declare a single context and instantiate it once:
You have only one place that instantiates a context rather than many. In a typical application, most pages will need some information from the database anyway.
Methods that call other methods will not each hold on to their own instance of a context object.
You can create a base controller class that by default creates a dbcontext object, allowing you to be DRY in all inherited controllers.
Answer from #Ic. is pretty good. I wanted to add that if you need to pass information from your Request into your DbContext constructor then you need to create the instance of your DbContext inside your action methods. The reason is the Request object will be null till the control enters your action method.
More information: I had a need to build connection string dynamically depending on the location of the user. I saved the location as a cookie that I accessed through Request object. I had a valid Request inside the action method but it was null inside the constructor or at the class level properties of the controller.
Related
In our code new freshers had made object of the action classes and used the methods.
How system affected if action class object used throughout the system.
There's nothing special about an S2 action class.
Turn this question around: since you're (apparently) not a "fresher", what do you think happens when a class is instantiated? How do you think S2 process a request? (Hint: it instantiates an action class, which is then eventually used to process the request.) How might an instantiated class, given that an S2 action can be a POJO, affect the rest of the system?
All this said:
From an architectural standpoint this is a bad idea, because logic used across classes should be properly extracted into a service/utility/etc. class and not tied up with a specific action.
It's also confusing from a cognitive load viewpoint: there's no reason to expect mainline code to manually instantiate an action--actions are instantiated by the framework for the sole purpose of processing requests.
I'm building a relatively simple webapp in ASP.NET MVC 4, using Entity Framework to talk to MS SQL Server. There's lots of scope to expand the application in future, so I'm aiming for a pattern that maximises reusability and adaptability in the code, to save work later on. The idea is:
Unit of Work pattern, to save problems with the database by only committing changes at the end of each set of actions.
Generic repository using BaseRepository<T> because the repositories will be mostly the same; the odd exception can extend and add its additional methods.
Dependency injection to bind those repositories to the IRepository<T> that the controllers will be using, so that I can switch data storage methods and such with minimal fuss (not just for best practice; there is a real chance of this happening). I'm using Ninject for this.
I haven't really attempted something like this from scratch before, so I've been reading up and I think I've got myself muddled somewhere. So far, I have an interface IRepository<T> which is implemented by BaseRepository<T>, which contains an instance of the DataContext which is passed into its constructor. This interface has methods for Add, Update, Delete, and various types of Get (single by ID, single by predicate, group by predicate, all). The only repository that doesn't fit this interface (so far) is the Users repository, which adds User Login(string username, string password) to allow login (the implementation of which handles all the salting, hashing, checking etc).
From what I've read, I now need a UnitOfWork class that contains instances of all the repositories. This unit of work will expose the repositories, as well as a SaveChanges() method. When I want to manipulate data, I instantiate a unit of work, access the repositories on it (which are instantiated as needed), and then save. If anything fails, nothing changes in the database because it won't reach the single save at the end. This is all fine. My problem is that all the examples I can find seem to do one of two things:
Some pass a data context into the unit of work, from which they retrieve the various repositories. This negates the point of DI by having my Entity-Framework-specific DbContext (or a class inherited from it) in my unit of work.
Some call a Get method to request a repository, which is the service locator pattern, which is at least unpopular, if not an antipattern, and either way I'd like to avoid it here.
Do I need to create an interface for my data source and inject that into the unit of work as well? I can't find any documentation on this that's clear and/or complete enough to explain.
EDIT
I think I've been overcomplicating it; I'm now folding my repository and unit of work into one - my repository is entirely generic so this just gives me a handful of generic methods (Add, Remove, Update, and a few kinds of Get) plus a SaveChanges method. This gives me a worker class interface; I can then have a factory class that provides instances of it (also interfaced). If I also have this worker implement IDisposable then I can use it in a scoped block. So now my controllers can do something like this:
using (var worker = DataAccess.BeginTransaction())
{
Product item = worker.Get<Product>(p => p.ID == prodName);
//stuff...
worker.SaveChanges();
}
If something goes wrong before the SaveChanges(), then all changes are discarded when it exits the scope block and the worker is disposed. I can use dependency injection to provide concrete implementations to the DataAccess field, which is passed into the base controller constructor. Business logic is all in the controller and works with IQueryable objects, so I can switch out the DataAccess provider object for anything I like as long as it implements the IRepository interface; there's nothing specific to Entity Framework anywhere.
So, any thoughts on this implementation? Is this on the right track?
I prefer to have UnitOfWork or a UnitOfWorkFactory injected into the repositories, that way I need not bother it everytime a new reposiory is added. Responsibility of UnitOfWork would be to just manage the transaction.
Here is an example of what I mean.
I have quite a few things in the constructor of my controller. Is it the case that every time I request a new page with MVC3 then the constructor executes?
A controller instance is required to serve each request. And to obtain this instance (obviously) the controller constructor is called on each request. This being said you should avoid doing many things in this constructor. There are cases for example where for some particular action on this controller you don't need all this initialization and despite this if you put it in the constructor, it will be executed. If the tasks you perform are simply instantiating some other dependencies that your controller needs, then you shouldn't worry about performance, you should worry about properly architecting your application as this job should be handled by a DI framework.
Another common gotcha is that inside the constructor you don't yet have access to the HttpContext and some properties such as Request, Response, ... might not be available in the controller constructor. They become available in the Initialize method.
All this to say that I recommend you avoid putting code (other than storing ctor argument dependencies into private variables for injecting things like services, repositories, ...) in your constructor.
The Controller base class includes the ControllerContext which is a per-request context for a controller which includes references to HttpContext for example.
Let that sink in a moment.
It's very easy to write a custom ControllerBuilder or use the new DependencyResolver to serve up a singleton controller using your favorite DI container. But what that means is your controller may hold onto state from a previous request.
In fact, one of the most common bugs when people use Castle Windsor (which uses Singleton by default I've been told) to create their controllers is they get weird behavior.
As others have pointed out, if your controller is doing a lot of work in the constructor, refactor that work into a dependency on your controller which gets passed in via your controller's contstructor. Let's call that dependency a "service".
That service can itself be a singleton (as long as it doesn't hold onto per-request state) and you can use the DependencyResolver combined with your DI container to instantiate your controllers.
It's up to the ControllerFactory to determine this; the controller factory serves up the controller instance. You could build in the ability to cache the controller, but: it would be better not to pass those references via the ctor of the controller. It would be better to cache each reference separately, and pass to the controller during construction, and let the controller get recreated everytime. If you cache the controller, it will cache other references potentially like HttpContext, which would be not the current request.
HTH.
Yes, M Jacob and this helps us making Data Access request for new DataContext in each request and it is very efficient. it is recommended to initialize a new DataContext (in your controller constructor) in each request rather than making persistent DataContext.
Internet is stateless and the server cannot really distinguish you from any other person out there (technically speaking, ignoring sessions and cookies). You are served the content and connection with you is ended. On your new request the things start from scratch. I agree with you that inability to keep an object alive is an overhead, but even bigger overhead would be if million users made a request with a different requests to the same object. Keeping million copies of the same object is next to impossible.
Regards,
Huske
I have a base Controller ApplicationController that needs to grab the URL Host and do some processing before the child controllers are fired. Since controller constructors are fired before RequestContext is initialized I have to override Initialize method to do my processing.
ApplicationController:
Protected Overrides Sub Initialize(ByVal requestContext As System.Web.Routing.RequestContext)
MyBase.Initialize(requestContext)
Dim host as String
host = Request.Url.Host.ToString
End Sub
What is the logic behind having Controller Constructors fire before the Initialize method?
Also what are the rules to what should be placed in the Initialize Method.
Assuming that constructors are the first instance method ever to be fired in a .NET class, that shouldn't come as a surprise and is not really something MVC specific. It's more how the .NET framework works.
The MVC framework needs to first instantiate a controller and then initialize it => it calls the constructor first. And because performing lots of code that could potentially might throw exceptions, etc... is not always best to be put in a constructor => the presence of the Initialize method. As far as this method is concerned I must admit that I have written lots of ASP.NET MVC code and never had to use it. Action filters always seemed like a better alternative.
So to answer your question:
Also what are the rules to what should be placed in the Initialize Method.
I've never ever put any code and never ever need to override this method. I've always preferred using action filters because this way I am no longer in the obligation of deriving from a common base controller (not that this is a problem).
Sometimes, maybe you would want your request to initialize your variables, so in this case you should use the Initialize method.
For example, if you want to initialize some variables in a different way when the request is local or not, etc.
Greetings,
Trying to sort through the best way to provide access to my Entity Manager while keeping the context open through the request to permit late loading. I am seeing a lot of examples like the following:
public class SomeController
{
MyEntities entities = new MyEntities();
}
The problem I see with this setup is that if you have a layer of business classes that you want to make calls into, you end up having to pass the manager as a parameter to these methods, like so:
public static GetEntity(MyEntities entityManager, int id)
{
return entityManager.Series.FirstOrDefault(s => s.SeriesId == id);
}
Obviously I am looking for a good, thread safe way, to provide the entityManager to the method without passing it. The way also needs to be unit testable, my previous attempts with putting it in Session did not work for unit tests.
I am actually looking for the recommended way of dealing with the Entity Framework in ASP .NET MVC for an enterprise level application.
Thanks in advance
Entity Framework v1.0 excels in Windows Forms applications where you can use the object context for as long as you like. In asp.net and mvc in particular it's a bit harder. My solution to this was to make the repositories or entity managers more like services that MVC could communicate with. I created a sort of generic all purpose base repository I could use whenever I felt like it and just stopped bothering too much about doing it right. I would try to avoid leaving the object context open for even a ms longer than is absolutely needed in a web application.
Have a look at EF4. I started using EF in production environment when that was in beta 0.75 or something similar and had no real issues with it except for it being "hard work" sometimes.
You might want to look at the Repository pattern (here's a write up of Repository with Linq to SQL).
The basic idea would be that instead of creating a static class, you instantiate a version of the Repository. You can pass in your EntityManager as a parameter to the class in the constructor -- or better yet, a factory that can create your EntityManager for the class so that it can do unit of work instantiation of the manager.
For MVC I use a base controller class. In this class you could create your entity manager factory and make it a property of the class so deriving classes have access to it. Allow it to be injected from a constructor but created with the proper default if the instance passed in is null. Whenever a controller method needs to create a repository, it can use this instance to pass into the Repository so that it can create the manager required.
In this way, you get rid of the static methods and allow mock instances to be used in your unit tests. By passing in a factory -- which ought to create instances that implement interfaces, btw -- you decouple your repository from the actual manager class.
Don't lazy load entities in the view. Don't make business layer calls in the view. Load all the entities the view will need up front in the controller, compute all the sums and averages the view will need up front in the controller, etc. After all, that's what the controller is for.