Accessing $app inside Silex Shared Service - silex

I'm doing a shared service like this in my app.php file:
$app['rules'] = $app->share(function() use($app) {
return new MyProject\Rules($app);
});
And then:
namespace MyProject;
use Silex\Application;
class Rules
{
private $app;
public $request;
public function __construct(Application $app) {
$this->app = $app;
}
public test() {
print_r($this->app['something']);
}
}
But when I access $app inside of $app['rules']->test(); it's a new sort of version $app and it doesn't have the variables that I set later in $app from other parts of the application. Is there any way to access the parent $app instead of this inside version?

You are injecting the whole $app into the Rules constructor using a type hint __construct(Application $app) but instead of getting the $app injected by the DIC on call time, you are passing a variable $app in ti's current state (the use part).
You have to use one or the other, the way you are doing it overrides the type hint and passes the variable in the current state, no future properties will be injected.
By the way, you are injecting the whole container (Silex\Application). A better way to do it is to inject just the service/s you need.
$app['rules'] = $app->share(function($app) { //$app is Injected automatically when called
return new MyProject\Rules($app); //here you pass the whole container
return new MyProject\Rules($app['something']); //here you pass only the required dependency
});
The code in MyProject is fine, leave the constructor as it is.

Related

How do I setup Windsor container on a console application to inject to external library

I have a console app and web API both referencing the same data layer which is a separate project.
In that data layer, I have a class that requires a repository that we are grabbing from the container when that class is instantiated.
In that class, it has a base class which we are doing the following in the constructor to setup the Repository:
IContainerAccessor containerAccessor = HttpContext.Current.ApplicationInstance as IContainerAccessor;
Repository = containerAccessor.Container.Resolve<IRepository>();
What would be the best way to set this up? This is obviously a problem for our console application as it has no HttpContext.
If I'm correct you want to setup your console app so it can inject classes from the shared data layer.
To do so, you need to create an installer for the console app and tell it to run the installers in the shared library, but to modify the life style from 'PerWebRequest' to 'Singleton' or 'Transient'.
For more information read this article:
http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/04/26/ChangingWindsorlifestylesafterthefact/
Be aware that changing this may cause problems.
I.e.: If multiple components configured as "perWebRequest" require a 'Unit-Of-Work' to be injected, then this uow will be different for all components if you change the life style to transient.
Changing it to Singleton causes the same but opposite problem. Objects that are created now will have the same object for different requests ...
If you are okay with the problems this code should get you starting
public class ConsoleAppInstaller: IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
// 1) make sure we do not use PerWebRequest life style types
var convertWebToTransient = new WebToTransientConvertor();
container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.AddContributor(convertWebToTransient);
// 2) call installers on all libraries we use ...
container.Install(FromAssembly.Containing<SharedDataLayerInstaller>());
// 3) link internal services ...
container.Register(Component.For<IXxxxFactory>().AsFactory());
container.Register(Component.For<IYyyyFactory>().AsFactory());
container.Register(Classes.FromThisAssembly().Where(c => typeof(Form).IsAssignableFrom(c)).LifestyleTransient());
}
public static IWindsorContainer Bootstrap()
{
return new WindsorContainer().Install(FromAssembly.This());
}
}
/// <summary>
/// This class allows to intercept installers using PerWebRequest lifestyles and replaces them with Transient life styles.
/// <code>container.Kernel.ComponentModelBuilder.AddContributor(new WebToTransientConvertor())</code>
/// </summary>
public class WebToTransientConvertor : IContributeComponentModelConstruction
{
//http://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/04/26/ChangingWindsorlifestylesafterthefact/
public void ProcessModel(IKernel kernel, ComponentModel model)
{
if (model.LifestyleType == LifestyleType.PerWebRequest)
//model.LifestyleType = LifestyleType.Transient;
model.LifestyleType = LifestyleType.Singleton;
}
}

StructureMap: How to send the container to a class that has a Constructor that does not accept Parameters

I am trying to find out how I can pass the StructrueMap container to a class that I wrote that inherits from another (MS-Class).
namespace TheNamespace
{
public class DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry : ValidatingIssuerNameRegistry
{
/* **This can't be done**
public DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry(IPortalTenantManager portalTenantManager)
{
_someField= portalTenantManager;
}*/
protected override bool IsThumbprintValid(string thumbprint, string issuer)
{
//How does it work ???????????
var portalTenantManager = container.GetInstance<IPortalTenantManager>();
//Do something with the portalTenantManager
}
}
I need portalTenantManager to be the Instance that I have defined in my container in the Global.asax.
My Global Assax has these things setup:
protected void Application_Start()
{
var container = new Container();
container.Configure(x =>
{ ....
....
x.For<IPortalTenantManager>().Use<PortalTenantManager>();
});
...
...
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new StructureMapControllerFactory(container));
...
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new StructureMapApiControllerFactory(container);
...
}
Edit:
Because of the comments of #NightOwl888 I'll explain a bit further what this class does. (Hopefully explaining so why my hands are tied)
My application is able to authenticate a user with Azure Active Directory and is Multi-tenant capable. In the authentication pipeline I have the possibility to store the validation endpoints in my database instead of the default way on the web.config file. See MSDN
and this, which actually is explaining exactly what I'm doing.
So I registered my class in the web.config under the Tag issuerNameRegistry. At some point of the validation pipeline my class is instantiated and the overriden method IsThumbprintValid is beeing called. The problem is that the class registered in issuerNameRegistry expects a parameterless constructor (there it is! the constrained construction!), therefore I cannot create a constructor that would solve my problem.
Thanks for your help
It turns out that this question has been asked before on MSDN, the answer of which was provided by Travis Spencer in 2 different posts.
it is typical in my experience to have a single container and use that service- or Web-side-wide. In the startup of the service or Web app, you can create the container, register the dependencies, new up an instance of your SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class, resolve your dependencies, use it to punch out a SecurityTokenService object, and host it.
After the first beta, we really pushed for DI support. We got a little hook in beta 2. You can now create a custom SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class that overrides the virtual CreateSecurityTokenService method. The implementation in Microsoft's SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration does Activator.CreateInstance; yours can do IoC. This can include the resolution of an IssuerNameRegistiry. Something like this perhaps:
RequestSecurityTokenResponse Issue(IClaimsPrincipal principal, RequestSecurityToken request)
{
SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration config = new MyGoodSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration();
SecurityTokenService sts = config.CreateSecurityTokenService();
RequestSecurityTokenResponse rstr = sts.Issue(principal, request);
return rstr;
}
public class MyGoodSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration : SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration
{
public override SecurityTokenService CreateSecurityTokenService()
{
IssuerNameRegistry = IoC.Resolve<IssuerNameRegistry>();
var sts = IoC.Reslove<SecurityTokenService>();
return sts;
}
}
Of course, this means that you need to create a static instance of your DI container so it is accessible to your SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class. Personally, I don't like that idea because it makes your DI container accessible throughout the application, which can lead to abuse of the DI container as a service locator.
Ideally, there would be a way in any DI friendly framework to pass the container into an abstract factory in order to resolve service dependencies. However, since I am not familiar with WIF it is unclear whether that can be done - perhaps the class where the Issue method exists could have a constructor added? The trick is to keep walking up the chain until you find the first place in the framework where you can intervene and do all of your DI configuration there.

Slim framework - Why does not halt method work if the controller extend the Slim class?

I have seen a very interesting thing. I did a little mvc/rest framework based on the Slim framework.
$app->put('/:id', function ($id) {
$app->halt(500, "Error") // Here this is working.
(new RestController)->editItem($id);
})->via('put');
So I wrote a RestController which extends the BaseController, and my BaseController extends the Slim framework.
class BaseController extends \Slim\Slim {
/**
* #var \app\models\AbstractModel
*/
protected $model;
public function __construct() {
$settings = require(__DIR__ .'/../configurations/slim.php');
parent::__construct($settings);
}
}
So my BaseController can uses the Slim class's methods and properties.
class RestController extends BaseController {
public function editItem($id) {
$data = $this->getRequestBody();
$result = $this->model->update($id, $data['data']);
// This is absolutely not working, but it seems my application will die in this case.
// Because I cannot see any written message (with echo or print methods...)
// This will always return with a 200 staus code and blank page!
$this->halt(404, json_encode(array('status' => "ERROR")));
}
}
But this will work fine... and I do not get it, why?
class RestController extends BaseController {
public function editItem($id) {
$data = $this->getRequestBody();
$result = $this->model->update($id, $data['data']);
// This will work.
$app = Slim::getInstance();
$app->halt(204, json_encode(array('status' => "ERROR")));
}
}
Anyone has a good ide?
You construct a new RestController in your route by doing (new RestController). Although it extends Slim/Slim in the class hierarchy, it is a new instance of it; it is not a copy of or reference to $app, the Slim application that is actually being run.
This causes issues in the first case: you say $this->halt(...) while $this is the newly constructed RestController which is a new instance of a Slim app, not the one that is currently running. Therefore the halt call has no effect on your the output of your application.
In the second case, you say $app->halt(...) where $app is Slim::getInstance(), the global instance of your Slim application, which is the actual running Slim app. Therefore the halt call has effect on the output of your application.
You can solve the issue either by using the second approach, or by instantiating your global $app variable as a RestController, and then you can do:
$app->put('/:id', function ($id) use ($app) {
$app->halt(500, "Error") // Here this is working.
$app->editItem($id);
})->via('put');
NB; you forgot to put use ($app) in the code posted to your question, I added it in my code above. Is it present in the code you are actually running? Otherwise the $app->halt() call should result in an error in any case.

Simple Injector manually registering controllers

I'm attempting to implement Dependency Injection into my architecture (MVC, DDD - Domain Model, Repository). And my architecture includes ASP.NET Identity 2.0.
At this stage, I don't want DI controlling any of the Identity 2.0 objects (UserAdminController, RolesAdminController...). I'd prefer the security objects outside of DI. At this stage, integrating the Identity objects in DI looks very difficult. I had a good look to see if someone has already done this, so I could read and learn how to do this. I couldn't find anything. (Found one post which came close, but no resolution).
Anyway, I've followed the Simple Injector MVC implementation (see standard code below), and trying many things, I believe the problem lies in me calling RegisterMvcControllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement will pickup all controllers with their name post-fixed with "controller".
Question: How can I select which controllers get registered with Simple Injector? (Is this called manually registering?)
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I've spent most of today trying to get my head around all this, and proceed to the next step, i.e. have DI implemented, and instantiating my objects.
...
...
... called from Application_Start()
// Create a Simple Injector container
var container = new Container();
// Configure the container
InitializeContainer(container);
container.RegisterMvcControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
// Verify the container's configuration
container.Verify();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new SimpleInjectorDependencyResolver(container));
private static void InitializeContainer(Container container)
{
container.Register<MyService1>();
container.Register<IMyRepositoryA, MyRepositoryA>();
// Trying to include Identity into Simple Injector - please ignore
container.Register<IUserStore<ApplicationUser>>(() => new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(new ApplicationDbContext()));
}
The RegisterMvcControllers has the following constraints on the types it registers:
The type must be public
The type must implement System.Web.Mvc.IController
The type must not be abstract
The type must not be a generic type definition
Its name must end with "Controller"
You can see what happens here in the source code.
The RegisterMvcControllers extension method calls into the SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister method to get the list of controllers to register. You can call that method yourself to see what is registered as follows:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
So instead of calling RegisterMvcControllers you can register the controllers yourself by calling the GetControllerTypesToRegister method:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
foreach (var controllerType in registeredControllerTypes)
{
container.Register(controllerType, controllerType, Lifestyle.Transient);
}
This way you can filter out any controller you want to register manually:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
.Where(type => type.Name != "UserStore`1");
foreach (var controllerType in registeredControllerTypes)
{
container.Register(controllerType, controllerType, Lifestyle.Transient);
}
Another option is to override the registration:
container.RegisterMvcControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
container.Options.AllowOverridingRegistrations = true;
container.Register<IUserStore<ApplicationUser>>(
() => new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(new ApplicationDbContext()))
// Always set the option back to false ASAP to prevent configuration errors.
container.Options.AllowOverridingRegistrations = false;

Getting the service locator anywhere in ZF2

According to this article: http://www.maltblue.com/tutorial/zend-framework-2-servicemanager
The ServiceManager is "in short a simple application registry that provides objects". So, I would think that it should be a singleton that we can have access anywhere in the application. But in case of ServiceManager, it isn't.
Why can't I get the service locator instance anywhere in the application?
ServiceManager basically act as container. Inside the container you satisfy various dependencies of an object you create and then return it to be used by other objects.
So in a way SM sits over the object, not goes inside the object. If you are using SM instance inside the object (probably to access other services) then you are going against the principle of Inversion of Control.
Following are the two ways
class A {
private $data;
public function __constructor($sm) {
$this->data = $sm->get('user_data'); // Service manager accessed inside the object
}
}
Other way
class B {
private $data;
public function __constructor($user_data) {
$this->data = $user_data; //$user_data getting injected from sm container
}
}
Somewhere inside Module.php:
'factories'=>
array(
'objB'=> function($sm) {
//this is the container where sm sites outside the object to satisfy its dependencies
$objB = new B($sm->get('user_data'));
return $objB;
}
)
In second example dependency ($user_data) gets injected into the object.
Here is a simple way to get ServiceLocator to instantiate objects wherever you want...is a very simple module that set ServiceLocator on application's bootstrap to a static variable in a class...you can get an idea to create something more sophisticated if it doesn't fit your needs :) Here is the module... https://github.com/fezfez/ServiceLocatorFactory

Resources