I have a windows service that does one particular job. Now if there were two or more instances (hypothetically speaking) each instance would differ in configuration only, but they would do the same job basically. They'd only be referring to different databases, tables as per configuration.
But I am looking for an approach on how I can increase/decrease the instances of such services? Looking for a small architecture for managing this...
PS: It is very simple to do this in windows azure; the difference being you'd increase/decrease the number of VM instances, and you can configure in database what each VM instance should do.
I think the problem you're facing is that multiple instances of services can't share the same name. The way I work around this is install the instances under different names. You can have your service installer class absorb a parameter:
[RunInstaller(true)]
public partial class ProjectInstaller : Installer
{
public ProjectInstaller()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
public override void Install(IDictionary stateSaver)
{
ResolveServiceName();
base.Install(stateSaver);
}
private void ResolveServiceName()
{
serviceInstaller1.ServiceName = Context.Parameters["ServiceName"];
serviceInstaller1.DisplayName = Context.Parameters["ServiceName"];
}
public override void Uninstall(IDictionary savedState)
{
ResolveServiceName();
base.Uninstall(savedState);
}
}
And when you're installing the service, you provide the ServiceName parameter:
installutil.exe /ServiceName=foo YourService.exe
Related
I've encountered a dependency injection scenario which I cannot find a way through.
We currently have an Azure function.
We are using dependency injection via the FunctionsStartup attribute.
That all works fine, until I get asked to make it work for multiple environments.
The tester found it too onerous to deploy to 7 different environments, so I was asked to re-jig the function so that it runs (in a loop) for those environments.
That means 7 different IConfigurations and somehow having 7 separate compartmentalised IOC registrations of services.
I can't think of a way of doing that, without significantly re-structuring the way abstractions are being resolved. Even if you set up registrations in a loop and inject an IEnumerable of a service, when it goes to resolve a child dependency, it just pulls the last one registered, rather than the one which was meant to correlate with the current item being iterated.
So, something like this (using Autofac):
Registration
foreach (var configuration in configurations)
{
containerBuilder.Register<ICosmosDbService<AccountUsage>>(sp =>
{
var dBConfig = CosmosDBHelper.GetProjectDatabaseConfig(configuration.Value, Project.Jupiter);
return CosmosClientInitializer<AccountUsage>.Initialize(dBConfig);
}).As<ICosmosDbService<AccountUsage>>();
}
Usage
private readonly IEnumerable<IAccountUsageService> _accountUsageService;
public JobScheduler(IEnumerable<IAccountUsageService> accountUsageService)
{
_accountUsageService = accountUsageService;
}
[FunctionName("JobScheduler")]
public async Task Run([TimerTrigger("0 */2 * * * *")] TimerInfo myTimer, ILogger log)
{
log.LogInformation($"Job Scheduler Timer trigger function executed at: {DateTime.Now}");
try
{
foreach (var usageService in _accountUsageService)
{
var logs = await usageService.GetCurrentAccountUsage("gfkjdsasjfa");
// ...
}
}
I realise this kind of DI usage is not ideal (and does not even work).
Is there a way to structure an Azure Function such that it can execute for different configurations in a compartmentalised manner? Or is this really just fighting against the technology?
You've got a couple of ways to do this - either inject the right dependencies into the function constructor, or resolve them dynamically using a service-locater type approach with a named instance.
Let's consider the second approach and what it would mean for your implementation. As you demonstrated, you'd be looping through your instances and resolving the dependency you want to use, then invoking it
foreach (var usageService in _accountUsageService)
{
var logs = await usageService.GetCurrentAccountUsage("named-instance");
logs.DoSomething();
}
This is technically possible, but now you're doing batch processing - you're doing more than once piece of work that's been triggered by a single event (the timer object), which means you have to deal with a couple of extra problems. What should you do if there's a failure with one of the instances, and what to do if one of the instances is running slowly?
Ideally, you want functions to do the smallest bit of work they can, and complete quickly - You don't want failure or slowness with one particular instance impacting the other instances. By breaking it down to the smallest piece of work (think, one event trigger does one piece of work) then you can take advantage of the functions runtime for things like retries on failures, and threading and concurrency is now being done for you by the runtime.
You could then think about a couple of ways you could do this. a) multiple function signatures and a service resolver approach, e.g.
public class JobScheduler
{
public JobScheduler(IEnumerable<IAccountUsageService> accountUsageService)
{
_accountUsageService = accountUsageService;
}
[FunctionName("FirstInstance")]
public Task FirstInstance([TimerTrigger("%MetricPoller:Schedule%")] TimerInfo myTimer)
{
var logs = await _accountUsageService.GetNamedInstance("instance-a");
logs.DoSomething();
}
[FunctionName("SecondInstance")]
public Task SecondInstance([TimerTrigger("%MetricPoller:Schedule%")] TimerInfo myTimer)
{
var logs = _accountUsageService.GetNamedInstance("instance-b");
logs.DoSomething();
}
}
or b), multiple classes with the necessary dependencies injected
public class JobSchedulerFirstInstance
{
public JobSchedulerFirstInstance(ILogs logs)
{
_logs = logs;
}
[FunctionName("FirstInstance")]
public Task FirstInstance([TimerTrigger("%MetricPoller:Schedule%")] TimerInfo myTimer)
{
_logs.DoSomething();
}
}
I'd personally lean towards multiple classes approach, and register named instances with my container. A bit of extra wire up work needed, but you'll end up with lots of small classes that all look very similar that are basically jus t plumbing that the functions runtime executes.
I'm new to Hangfire and I'm trying to understand how this works.
So I have a MVC 5 application and a Console application in the same solution. The console application is a simple one that just updates some data on the database (originally planned to use Windows Task Scheduler).
Where exactly do I install Hangfire? In the Web app or the console? Or should I convert the console into a class on the Web app?
If I understand it correctly, the console in your solution is acting like an "pseudo" HangFire, since like you said it does some database operations overtime and you plan to execute it using the Task Scheduler.
HangFire Overview
HangFire was design to do exactly what you want with your console app, but with a lot more of power and functionalities, so you avoid all the overhead of creating all that by yourself.
HangFire Instalation
HangFire is installed commonly alongside with ASP.NET Applications, but if you carefully read the docs, you will surprisingly find this:
Hangfire project consists of a couple of NuGet packages available on
NuGet Gallery site. Here is the list of basic packages you should know
about:
Hangfire – bootstrapper package that is intended to be installed only
for ASP.NET applications that uses SQL Server as a job storage. It
simply references to Hangfire.Core, Hangfire.SqlServer and
Microsoft.Owin.Host.SystemWeb packages.
Hangfire.Core – basic package
that contains all core components of Hangfire. It can be used in any
project type, including ASP.NET application, Windows Service, Console,
any OWIN-compatible web application, Azure Worker Role, etc.
As you can see, HangFire can be used in any type of project including console applications but you will need to manage and add all the libraries depending on what kind of job storage you will use. See more here:
Once HangFire is Installed you can configure it to use the dashboard, which is an interface where you can find all the information about your background jobs. In the company I work, we used HangFire several times with recurring jobs mostly to import users, synchronize information across applications and perform operations that would be costly to run during business hours, and the Dashboard proved to be very useful when we wanted to know if a certain job was running or not. It also uses CRON to schedule the operations.
A sample of we are using right now is:
Startup.cs
public partial class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
//Get the connection string of the HangFire database
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.UseSqlServerStorage(connection);
//Start HangFire Server and enable the Dashboard
app.UseHangfireDashboard();
app.UseHangfireServer();
//Start HangFire Recurring Jobs
HangfireServices.Instance.StartSendDetails();
HangfireServices.Instance.StartDeleteDetails();
}
}
HangfireServices.cs
public class HangfireServices
{
//.. dependency injection and other definitions
//ID of the Recurring JOBS
public static string SEND_SERVICE = "Send";
public static string DELETE_SERVICE = "Delete";
public void StartSend()
{
RecurringJob.AddOrUpdate(SEND_SERVICE, () =>
Business.Send(), //this is my class that does the actual process
HangFireConfiguration.Instance.SendCron.Record); //this is a simple class that reads an configuration CRON file
}
public void StartDeleteDetails()
{
RecurringJob.AddOrUpdate(DELETE_SERVICE, () =>
Business.SendDelete(), //this is my class that does the actual process
HangFireConfiguration.Instance.DeleteCron.Record); //this is a simple class that reads an configuration CRON file
}
}
HangFireConfiguration.cs
public sealed class HangFireConfiguration : ConfigurationSection
{
private static HangFireConfiguration _instance;
public static HangFireConfiguration Instance
{
get { return _instance ?? (_instance = (HangFireConfiguration)WebConfigurationManager.GetSection("hangfire")); }
}
[ConfigurationProperty("send_cron", IsRequired = true)]
public CronElements SendCron
{
get { return (CronElements)base["send_cron"]; }
set { base["send_cron"] = value; }
}
[ConfigurationProperty("delete_cron", IsRequired = true)]
public CronElements DeleteCron
{
get { return (CronElements)base["delete_cron"]; }
set { base["delete_cron"] = value; }
}
}
hangfire.config
<hangfire>
<send_cron record="0,15,30,45 * * * *"></send_cron>
<delete_cron record="0,15,30,45 * * * *"></delete_cron>
</hangfire>
The CRON expression above will run at 0,15,30,45 minutes every hour every day.
Web.config
<configSections>
<!-- Points to the HangFireConfiguration class -->
<section name="hangfire" type="MyProject.Configuration.HangFireConfiguration" />
</configSections>
<!-- Points to the .config file -->
<hangfire configSource="Configs\hangfire.config" />
Conclusion
Given the scenario you described, I would probably install HangFire in your ASP.NET MVC application and remove the console application, simple because it is one project less to worry about. Even though you can install it on a console application I would rather not follow that path because if you hit a brick wall (and you'll hit, trust me), chances are you'll find help mostly for cases where it was installed in ASP.NET applications.
No need of any more console application to update the database. You can use hangfire in your MVC application itself.
http://docs.hangfire.io/en/latest/configuration/index.html
After adding the hangfire configuration, you can make use of normal MVC method to do the console operations like updating the DB.
Based on your requirement you can use
BackgroundJob.Enqueue --> Immediate update to DB
BackgroundJob.Schedule --> Delayed update to DB
RecurringJob.AddOrUpdate --> Recurring update to DB like windows service.
Below is an example,
public class MyController : Controller
{
public void MyMVCMethod(int Id)
{
BackgroundJob.Enqueue(() => UpdateDB(Id));
}
public void UpdateDB(Id)
{
// Code to update the Database.
}
}
We're trying to use MEF 2 with ASP.NET MVC 4 to support an extensible application. There are really 2 parts to this question (hope that's okay SO gods):
How do we use Microsoft.Composition and the MVC container code (MEF/MVC demo source) to replace Ninject as our DI for ICoreService, ICoreRepository, IUnitOfWork, and IDbContext?
It looks like we can't use both Ninject and the MVC container at the same time (I'm sure many are saying "duh"), so we'd like to go with MEF, if possible. I tried removing Ninject and setting [Export] attributes on each of the relevant implementations, spanning two assemblies in addition to the web project, but Save() failed to persist with no errors. I interpreted that as a singleton issue, but could not figure out how to sort it out (incl. [Shared]).
How do we load multiple assemblies dynamically at runtime?
I understand how to use CompositionContainer.AddAssemblies() to load specific DLLs, but for our application to be properly extensible, we require something more akin to how I (vaguely) understand catalogs in "full" MEF, which have been stripped out from the Microsoft.Composition package (I think?); to allow us to load all IPluggable (or whatever) assemblies, which will include their own UI, service, and repository layers and tie in to the Core service/repo too.
EDIT 1
A little more reading solved the first problem which was, indeed, a singleton issue. Attaching [Shared(Boundaries.HttpRequest)] to the CoreDbContext solved the persistence problem. When I tried simply [Shared], it expanded the 'singletonization' to the Application level (cross-request) and threw an exception saying that the edited object was already in the EF cache.
EDIT 2
I used the iterative assembly loading "meat" from Nick Blumhardt's answer below to update my Global.asax.cs code. The standard MEF 2 container from his code did not work in mine, probably because I'm using the MEF 2(?) MVC container. Summary: the code listed below now works as desired.
CoreDbContext.cs (Data.csproj)
[Export(typeof(IDbContext))]
[Shared(Boundaries.HttpRequest)]
public class CoreDbContext : IDbContext { ... }
CoreRepository.cs (Data.csproj)
[Export(typeof(IUnitOfWork))]
[Export(typeof(ICoreRepository))]
public class CoreRepository : ICoreRepository, IUnitOfWork
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public CoreRepository(IInsightDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
...
}
CoreService.cs (Services.csproj)
[Export(typeof(ICoreService))]
public class CoreService : ICoreService
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public CoreService(ICoreRepository repository, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_repository = repository;
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
...
}
UserController.cs (Web.csproj)
public class UsersController : Controller
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public UsersController(ICoreService service)
{
_service = service;
}
...
}
Global.asax.cs (Web.csproj)
public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
CompositionProvider.AddAssemblies(
typeof(ICoreRepository).Assembly,
typeof(ICoreService).Assembly,
);
// EDIT 2 --
// updated code to answer my 2nd question based on Nick Blumhardt's answer
foreach (var file in System.IO.Directory.GetFiles(Server.MapPath("Plugins"), "*.dll"))
{
try
{
var name = System.Reflection.AssemblyName.GetAssemblyName(file);
var assembly = System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(name);
CompositionProvider.AddAssembly(assembly);
}
catch
{
// You'll need to craft exception handling to
// your specific scenario.
}
}
}
}
If I understand you correctly, you're looking for code that will load all assemblies from a directory and load them into the container; here's a skeleton for doing that:
var config = new ContainerConfiguration();
foreach (var file in Directory.GetFiles(#".\Plugins", "*.dll"))
{
try
{
var name = AssemblyName.GetAssemblyName(file);
var assembly = Assembly.Load(name);
config.WithAssembly(assembly);
}
catch
{
// You'll need to craft exception handling to
// your specific scenario.
}
}
var container = config.CreateContainer();
// ...
Hammett discusses this scenario and shows a more complete version in F# here: http://hammett.castleproject.org/index.php/2011/12/a-decent-directorycatalog-implementation/
Note, this won't detect assemblies added to the directory after the application launches - Microsoft.Composition isn't intended for that kind of use, so if the set of plug-ins changes your best bet is to detect that with a directory watcher and prompt the user to restart the app. HTH!
MEF is not intended to be used as DI framework. Which means that you should separate your "plugins" (whatever they are) composition from your infrastructure dependencies, and implement the former via MEF and the latter via whatever DI framework you prefer.
I think there are a little misunderstandings on what MEF can and can't do.
Originally MEF was conceived as purely an extensibility architecture, but as the framework evolved up to its first release, it can be fully supported as a DI container also. MEF will handle dependency injection for you, and does so through it's ExportProvider architecture. It is also entirely possible to use other DI frameworks with MEF. So in reality there are a number of ways things could be achieved:
Build a NinjectExportProvider that you can plug into MEF, so when MEF is searching for available exports, it will be able to interrogate your Ninject container.
Use an implementation of the Common Services Locator pattern to bridge between MEF and Ninject or vice versa.
Because you are using MEF for the extensibility, you'll probably want to use the former, as this exposes your Ninject components to MEF, which in turn exposes them to your plugins.
The other thing to consider, which is a bit disappointing, is in reality there isn't a lot of room for automagically plugging in of features ala Wordpress on ASP.NET. ASP.NET is a compiled and managed environment, and because of that you either resort to late-binding by loading assemblies manually at runtime, or you restart the application to pick up the new plugins, which sort of defeats the object of being able to plug new extensions in through the application.
My advice, is plan your architecture to pick up any extensibility points as startup and assume that any core changes will require a deployment and application restart.
In terms of the direct questions asked:
The CompositionProvider accepts in instance of ContainerConfiguration which is used internally to create the CompositionContainer used by the provider. So you could use this as the point by which you customise how you want your container to be instantiated. The ContainerConfiguration supports a WithProvider method:
var configuration = new ContainerConfiguration().WithProvider(new NinjectExportDescriptorProvider(kernel));
CompositionProvider.SetConfiguration(configuration);
Where NinjectExportDescriptorProvider might be:
public class NinjectExportDescriptorProvider: ExportDescriptorProvider
{
private readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectExportDescriptorProvider(IKernel kernel)
{
if (kernel == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("kernel");
_kernel = kernel;
}
public override IEnumerable<ExportDescriptorPromise> GetExportDescriptors(
CompositionContract contract, DependencyAccessor dependencyAccessor)
{
var type = contract.ContractType;
if (!_kernel.GetBindings(type).Any())
return NoExportDescriptors;
return new[] {
new ExportDescriptorPromise(
contract,
"Ninject Kernel",
true, // Hmmm... need to consider this, setting it to true will create it as a shared part, false as new instance each time,
NoDependencies,
_ => ExportDescriptor.Create((c, o) => _kernel.Get(type), NoMetadata)) };
}
}
}
Note: I have not tested this, this is all theory, and is based on the example AppSettingsExportDescriptorProvider at: http://mef.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=ProgrammingModelExtensions
It's different from using the standard ExportProvider, because using the CompostionProvider is built around lightweight composition. But essentially you're wrapping up access to your Ninject kernel and making it available to your CompositionContainer.
As with adding a specific new provider (see above), you can use the ContainerConfiguration to read the available assemblies, probably something like:
var configuration = new ContainerConfiguration().WithAssemblies(AppDomain.GetAssemblies())
Again, I haven't tested all of this, but I hope it at least points you in the right direction.
Let's say we have class:
public class WithDependencies
{
public WithDependencies(IAmDependencyOne first, IAmDependencyTwo second)
// ...
}
Now the question. How do you create objects of WithDependencies class in an application?
I know there are many ways.
new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
new WithDependencies(IoC.Resolve(IDependencyOne), IoC.Resolve(IDependencyTwo());
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
IoC.Resolve(WithDependencies);
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
// isolate ourselves from concrete IoC Container
MyCustomWithDependenciesFactory.Create();
and so on...
What do you think is the way to do it?
Edit:
Because I don't get answers or I don't understand them I'll try to ask again. Let's say that on some event (button, timer, whatever) I need new object WithDependencies(). How do I create it? Assume IoC container is already configured.
It depends on the context, so it's impossible to provide a single answer. Conceptually you'd be doing something like this from the Composition Root:
var wd = new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
However, even in the absence of a DI Container, the above code isn't always unambiguously the correct answer. In some cases, you might want to share the same dependency among several consumers, like this:
var dep1 = new DependencyOne();
var wd = new WithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyTwo());
var another = AnotherWithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyThree());
In other cases, you might not want to share dependencies, in which case the first option is more correct.
This is just a small glimpse of an entire dimension of DI concerned with Lifetime Management. Many DI Containers can take care of that for you, which is one excellent argument to prefer a DI Container over Poor Man's DI.
Once you start using a DI Container, you should follow the Register Resolve Release pattern when resolving types, letting Auto-wiring take care of the actual composition:
var wd = container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
The above example assumes that the container is already correctly configured.
If you need to create a dependency which has its own dependencies, you can either A) do it yourself, or B) ask something else to do it for you. Option A negates the benefits of dependency injection (decoupling, etc.), so I would say option B is a better starting point. Now, we have chosen to use the factory pattern, no matter whether it takes the form of a service locator (i.e. IoC.Resolve), a static factory, or an instance factory. The point is that we have delegated that responsibility to an external authority.
There are a number of trade-offs required for static accessors. (I went over them in another answer, so I won't repeat them here.) In order to avoid introducing a dependency on the infrastructure or the container, a solid option is to accept a factory for creating WithDependencies when we need an instance somewhere else:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly IWithDependenciesFactory _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(IWithDependenciesFactory withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory.Create();
...Use the instance...
}
}
Next, we can create a container-specific implementation of the factory:
public class WithDependenciesFactory : IWithDependenciesFactory
{
private readonly IContainer _container;
public WithDependenciesFactory(IContainer container)
{
_container = container
}
public WithDependencies Create()
{
return _container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
}
}
Now NeedsWithDependencies is completely isolated from any knowledge of how WithDependencies gets created; it also exposes all its dependencies in its constructor, instead of hiding dependencies on static accessors, making it easy to reuse and test.
Defining all those factories can get a little cumbersome, though. I like Autofac's factory relationship type, which will detect parameters of the form Func<TDependency> and automatically inject a function which serves the same purpose as the hand-coded factory above:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory();
...Use the instance...
}
}
It also works great with runtime parameters:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<int, WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<int, WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo(int x)
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory(x);
...Use the instance...
}
}
Sometimes I try to get rid of factories or at least not depend directly on them, so Dependency Injection (without factories) is useful of course.
Therefore I use Google Juice, cause its a small little framework using Java Annotations and you can quickly change your injections / dependencies. Just take a look at it:
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
We are trying to figure out how to setup Dependency Injection for situations where service classes can have different dependencies based on how they are used. In our specific case, we have a web app where 95% of the time the connection string is the same for the entire Request (this is a web application), but sometimes it can change.
For example, we might have 2 classes with the following dependencies (simplified version - service actually has 4 dependencies):
public LoginService (IUserRepository userRep)
{
}
public UserRepository (IContext dbContext)
{
}
In our IoC container, most of our dependencies are auto-wired except the Context for which I have something like this (not actual code, it's from memory ... this is StructureMap):
x.ForRequestedType().Use()
.WithCtorArg("connectionString").EqualTo(Session["ConnString"]);
For 95% of our web application, this works perfectly. However, we have some admin-type functions that must operate across thousands of databases (one per client). Basically, we'd want to do this:
public CreateUserList(IList<string> connStrings)
{
foreach (connString in connStrings)
{
//first create dependency graph using new connection string
????
//then call service method on new database
_loginService.GetReportDataForAllUsers();
}
}
My question is: How do we create that new dependency graph for each time through the loop, while maintaining something that can easily be tested?
To defer the creation of an object until runtime, you can use a factory:
public interface ILoginServiceFactory
{
ILoginService CreateLoginService(string connectionString);
}
Usage:
public void CreateUserList(IList<string> connStrings)
{
foreach(connString in connStrings)
{
var loginService = _loginServiceFactory.CreateLoginService(connString);
loginService.GetReportDataForAllUsers();
}
}
Within the loop, do:
container.With("connectionString").EqualTo(connString).GetInstance<ILoginService>()
where "connectionString" is the name of a string constructor parameter on the concrete implementation of ILoginService.
So most UserRepository methods use a single connection string obtained from session, but several methods need to operate against a list of connection strings?
You can solve this problem by promoting the connection string dependency from IContext to the repository and adding two additional dependencies - a context factory and a list of all the possible connections strings the repository might need to do its work:
public UserRepository(IContextFactory contextFactory,
string defaultConnectionString,
List<string> allConnectionStrings)
Then each of its methods can build as many IContext instances as they need:
// In UserRepository
public CreateUserList() {
foreach (string connString in allConnectionStrings) {
IContext context = contextFactory.CreateInstance(connString);
// Build the rest of the dependency graph, etc.
_loginService.GetReportDataForAllUsers();
}
}
public LoginUser() {
IContext context = contextFactory.CreateInstance(defaultConnectionString);
// Build the rest of the dependency graph, etc.
}
We ended up just creating a concrete context and injecting that, then changing creating a wrapper class that changed the context's connection string. Seemed to work fine.