I've got a project where we have our own customer registration and account management system, but certain elements of the application link to 3rd party services. These services have common functionality e.g. creating an account in their own DB, but the underlying implementation will be different for how to interactive with the third party services.
What I've done so far is create a CustomerRepository which implements ICustomerRepository. This contains all our own specific requirements. ICustomerRepository also has definitions for the common methods that all third parties will have, but these methods are set to virtual in the CustomerRepository class, which throws exceptions if they're called, requiring you to implement them in the third party classes.
Then from this, I have:
ThirdPartyACustomer : CustomerRepository, IThirdPartyACustomer
ThirdPartyBCustomer : CustomerRepository
As you can probably guess, both of those sub classes inherit and override the virtual methods, with the exception of ThirdPartyACustomer which also implements additional methods that are specific to that particular type of third party user (e.g. there might be a place where the user can edit specific features related to third party A, which third party B doesn't offer.
Now, with that out of the way, the real basis of my question:
Some of the processes (controllers) in my application can use the CustomerRepository without any problems as they only need our core functionality.
Other processes in the app require a particular type of ICustomerRepository to be passed. Anything that calls a method that was defined as virtual in CustomerRepository will need to pass either ThirdPartyACustomer or ThirdPartyBCustomer so that the correct implementation is called.
Originally in this initialisation of this type of controller I'd do something like:
public RegistrationController()
{
ICustomerRepository _customerRepository = GetCustomerRepository();
}
where GetCustomerRepository() had some logic that determined which type of ThirdParty to use, based on the subdomain, for example.
Now, what I'm thinking is that I improve this by creating a custom attribute, along the lines of this:
[ThirdPartyDependent]
class RegistrationController
{
public RegistrationController(ICustomerRepository customerRepository)
{
_customerRepository = customerRepository;
}
}
and move the population of customerRepository parameter into that attribute, e.g. the logic in GetCustomerRepository would happen in there.
I'm fairly sure something like this is doable and seems to make sense for testing purposes, but not quite sure of what I should be googling for, or whether there is a better way to do things, so looking for some guidance from someone more experienced with MVC.
That's the responsibility of your DI framework. For example Ninject provides you access to the HttpContext when configuring the dependencies, so you could pick the proper implementation based on some HttpContext value. For example:
kernel.Bind<ICustomerRepository>().ToMethod(ctx =>
{
if (HttpContext.Current.... Test something on the request or domain or whatever)
{
return new ThirdPartyACustomer();
}
return ThirdPartyBCustomer();
});
and then of course your controller will be totally agnostic. All that a controller should care is that it gets injected some repository which obeys a given contract:
public class RegistrationController: Controller
{
private readonly ICustomerRepository _customerRepository;
public RegistrationController(ICustomerRepository customerRepository)
{
_customerRepository = customerRepository;
}
}
Related
I need to implement MVC architecture in my company, So can anyone suggest where to keep frequently used methods to call on all pages. Like:
states ddl, departments ddl also roles list and etc...
Please give me suggestions where to keep them in architecture.
Thanks
There are different solutions depending on the scale of your application. For small projects, you can simply create a set of classes in MVC application itself. Just create a Utils folder and a DropDownLists class and away you go. For simple stuff like this, I find it's acceptable to have static methods that return the data, lists, or enumerations you require.
Another option is to create an abstract MyControllerBase class that descends from Controller and put your cross-cutting concerns in there, perhaps as virtual methods or properties. Then all your actual controllers can descend from MyControllerBase.
For larger applications, or in situations where you might share these classes with other MVC applications, create a shared library such as MySolution.Utils and reference the library from all projects as required.
Yet another possibility for larger solutions is to use Dependency Injection to inject the requirements in at runtime. You might consider using something like Unity or Ninject for this task.
Example, as per your request (also in GitHub Gist)
// declare these in a shared library
public interface ILookupDataProvider
{
IEnumerable<string> States { get; }
}
public class LookupDataProvider: ILookupDataProvider
{
public IEnumerable<string> States
{
get
{
return new string[] { "A", "B", "C" };
}
}
}
// then inject the requirement in to your controller
// in this example, the [Dependency] attribute comes from Unity (other DI containers are available!)
public class MyController : Controller
{
[Dependency]
public ILookupDataProvider LookupDataProvider { get; set; }
public ActionResult Index()
{
var myModel = new MyModel
{
States = LookupDataProvider.States
};
return View(myModel);
}
}
In the code above, you'll need to configure your Dependency Injection technology but this is definitely outside the scope of the answer (check SO for help here). Once configured correctly, the concrete implementation of ILookupDataProvider will be injected in at runtime to provide the data.
One final solution I would suggest, albeit this would be very much overkill for small projects would be to host shared services in a WCF service layer. This allows parts of your application to be separated out in to highly-scalable services, should the need arise in the future.
What is the best way to abstract away 3rd party dependencies, when using Ninject with ASP.NET MVC?
Usually, I do something like this:
public interface IProductRepository
{
IEnumerable<Product> GetProducts();
}
public class ProductRespository : IProductRepository
{
public IEnumerable<Product> GetProducts()
{
...
}
}
And then in the controller:
public class ProductController : Controller
{
private IProductRepository repository;
public ProductController(IProductRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
...
}
And then I use Ninject to automatically inject the solid ProductRepository into the controller.
But how do I do this if the dependency is 3rd party? For example, I'm using FlickrNet.
public class ProductController : Controller
{
private Flickr flickr;
...
}
I'd like to be able to abstract the Flickr object away into an interface so that I can use dependency injection and make it easier to unit test. I know I could create a 'service' type interface and then implement a class based off of that which would wrap the Flickr object.
But I would have to define a member in the interface corresponding to each member of the Flickr object, and then map each of these in the wrapper object. And there are lots and lots of members in the Flickr object.
Is there any better way to deal with this? My main goal is to make it easy to mock the Flickr dependency in unit tests.
Upgraded my comment to an answer.
This is not a problem with DI but a general architectural problem. You can either declare the controller as your abstraction layer or define a wrapper around the flickr component that implements a custom interface. If the methods on your 3rd party component consume more 3rd party classes you would need to abstract them away too and so on until you are down to only primitive values or more wrappers around 3rd party code. Depending on the complexity of that component this could mean a lot of mapping and wrapping.
I think a wrapper is the right way to go. You don't have to expose every single member of the 3rd party object -- just the ones you need. With different interfaces for different situations, the wrapper solution becomes even prettier.
I know this article is not about unit testing, but the solution it provides would incidentally work well for mock-based unit testing as well.
http://goodcoffeegoodcode.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html
Basically, as #Brian Dishaw suggested, you need to extract interfaces from FlickrNet classes and inject those to your classes.
The only purpose would be if you abstract away flickr .NET into a higher abstraction layer. For instance
interface IAlbumViewer
{
IEnumerable<IImage> GetImages();
}
interface IPictureUploader
{
string Upload(string filename, Stream image)
}
That is, create interfaces/methods that are specific for your usecases contra generic flickr interfaces. You would also benefit from that since it makes it a lot easier to add support for other image services.
I am used to IoC/DI in web applications - mainly Ninject with MVC3. My controller is created for me, filled in with all dependencies in place, subdependencies etc.
However, things are different in a thick client application. I have to create my own objects, or I have to revert to a service locator style approach where I ask the kernel (probably through some interface, to allow for testability) to give me an object complete with dependencies.
However, I have seen several places that Service Locator has been described as an anti-pattern.
So my question is - if I want to benefit from Ninject in my thick client app, is there a better/more proper way to get all this?
Testability
Proper DI / IoC
The least amount of coupling possible
Please note I am not just talking about MVVM here and getting view models into views. This is specifically triggered by a need to provide a repository type object from the kernel, and then have entities fetched from that repository injected with functionality (the data of course comes from the database, but they also need some objects as parameters depending on the state of the world, and Ninject knows how to provide that). Can I somehow do this without leaving both repositories and entities as untestable messes?
If anything is unclear, let me know. Thanks!
EDIT JULY 14th
I am sure that the two answers provided are probably correct. However, every fiber of my body is fighting this change; Some of it is probably caused by a lack of knowledge, but there is also one concrete reason why I have trouble seeing the elegance of this way of doing things;
I did not explain this well enough in the original question, but the thing is that I am writing a library that will be used by several (4-5 at first, maybe more later) WPF client applications. These applications all operate on the same domain model etc., so keeping it all in one library is the only way to stay DRY. However, there is also the chance that customers of this system will write their own clients - and I want them to have a simple, clean library to talk to. I don't want to force them to use DI in their Composition Root (using the term like Mark Seeman in his book) - because that HUGELY complicates things in comparison to them just newing up a MyCrazySystemAdapter() and using that.
Now, the MyCrazySystemAdapter (name chosen because I know people will disagree with me here) needs to be composed by subcomponents, and put together using DI. MyCrazySystemAdapter itself shouldn't need to be injected. It is the only interface the clients needs to use to talk to the system. So a client happily should get one of those, DI happens like magic behind the scenes, and the object is composed by many different objects using best practices and principles.
I do realize that this is going to be a controversial way of wanting to do things. However, I also know the people who are going to be clients of this API. If they see that they need to learn and wire up a DI system, and create their whole object structure ahead of time in their application entry point (Composition Root), instead of newing up a single object, they will give me the middle finger and go mess with the database directly and screw things up in ways you can hardly imagine.
TL;DR: Delivering a properly structured API is too much hassle for the client. My API needs to deliver a single object - constructed behind the scenes using DI and proper practices - that they can use. The real world some times trumps the desire to build everything backwards in order to stay true to patterns and practices.
I suggest to have a look at MVVM frameworks like Caliburn. They provide integration with IoC containers.
Basically, you should build up the complete application in your app.xaml. If some parts need to be created later because you do not yet know everything to create them at startup then inject a factory either as interface (see below) or Func (see Does Ninject support Func (auto generated factory)?) into the class that needs to create this instance. Both will be supported natively in the next Ninject release.
e.g.
public interface IFooFactory { IFoo CreateFoo(); }
public class FooFactory : IFooFactory
{
private IKernel kernel;
FooFactory(IKernel kernel)
{
this.kernel = kernel;
}
public IFoo CreateFoo()
{
this.kernel.Get<IFoo>();
}
}
Note that the factory implementation belongs logically to the container configuration and not to the implementation of your business classes.
I don't know anything about WPF or MVVM, but your question is basically about how to get stuff out of the container without using a Service Locator (or the container directly) all over the place, right?
If yes, I can show you an example.
The point is that you use a factory instead, which uses the container internally. This way, you are actually using the container in one place only.
Note: I will use an example with WinForms and not tied to a specific container (because, as I said, I don't know WPF...and I use Castle Windsor instead of NInject), but since your basic question is not specificaly tied to WPF/NInject, it should be easy for you to "port" my answer to WFP/NInject.
The factory looks like this:
public class Factory : IFactory
{
private readonly IContainer container;
public Factory(IContainer container)
{
this.container = container;
}
public T GetStuff<T>()
{
return (T)container.Resolve<T>();
}
}
The main form of your app gets this factory via constructor injection:
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
private readonly IFactory factory;
public MainForm(IFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
InitializeComponent(); // or whatever needs to be done in a WPF form
}
}
The container is initialized when the app starts, and the main form is resolved (so it gets the factory via constructor injection).
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var container = new Container();
container.Register<MainForm>();
container.Register<IFactory, Factory>();
container.Register<IYourRepository, YourRepository>();
Application.Run(container.Resolve<MainForm>());
}
}
Now the main form can use the factory to get stuff like your repository out of the container:
var repo = this.factory.GetStuff<IYourRepository>();
repo.DoStuff();
If you have more forms and want to use the factory from there as well, you just need to inject the factory into these forms like into the main form, register the additional forms on startup as well and open them from the main form with the factory.
Is this what you wanted to know?
EDIT:
Ruben, of course you're right. My mistake.
The whole stuff in my answer was an old example that I had lying around somewhere, but I was in a hurry when I posted my answer and didn't read the context of my old example carefully enough.
My old example included having a main form, from which you can open any other form of the application. That's what the factory was for, so you don't have to inject every other form via constructor injection into the main form.
Instead, you can use the factory to open any new form:
var form = this.factory.GetStuff<IAnotherForm>();
form.Show();
Of course you don't need the factory just to get the repository from a form, as long as the repository is passed to the form via constructor injection.
If your app consists of only a few forms, you don't need the factory at all, you can just pass the forms via constructor injection as well:
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
private readonly IAnotherForm form;
// pass AnotherForm via constructor injection
public MainForm(IAnotherForm form)
{
this.form = form;
InitializeComponent(); // or whatever needs to be done in a WPF form
}
// open AnotherForm
private void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.form.Show();
}
}
public partial class AnotherForm : Form
{
private readonly IRepository repo;
// pass the repository via constructor injection
public AnotherForm(IRepository repo)
{
this.repo= repo;
InitializeComponent(); // or whatever needs to be done in a WPF form
// use the repository
this.repo.DoStuff();
}
}
I'm practicing DDD with ASP.NET MVC and come to a situation where my controllers have many dependencies on different services and repositories, and testing becomes very tedious.
In general, I have a service or repository for each aggregate root. Consider a page which will list a customer, along with it's orders and a dropdown of different packages and sellers. All of those types are aggregate roots. For this to work, I need a CustomerService, OrderService, PackageRepository and a UserRepository. Like this:
public class OrderController {
public OrderController(Customerservice customerService,
OrderService orderService, Repository<Package> packageRepository,
Repository<User> userRepository)
{
_customerService = customerService
..
}
}
Imagine the number of dependencies and constructor parameters required to render a more complex view.
Maybe I'm approaching my service layer wrong; I could have a CustomerService which takes care of all this, but my service constructor will then explode. I think I'm violating SRP too much.
I think I'm violating SRP too much.
Bingo.
I find that using a command processing layer makes my applications architecture cleaner and more consistent.
Basically, each service method becomes a command handler class (and the method parameters become a command class), and every query is also its own class.
This won't actually reduce your dependencies - your query will likely still require those same couple of services and repositories to provide the correct data; however, when using an IoC framework like Ninject or Spring it won't matter because they will inject what is needed up the whole chain - and testing should be much easier as a dependency on a specific query is easier to fill and test than a dependency on a service class with many marginally related methods.
Also, now the relationship between the Controller and its dependencies is clear, logic has been removed from the Controller, and the query and command classes are more focused on their individual responsibilities.
Yes, this does cause a bit of an explosion of classes and files. Employing proper Object Oriented Programming will tend to do that. But, frankly, what's easier to find/organize/manage - a function in a file of dozens of other semi-related functions or a single file in a directory of dozens of semi-related files. I think that latter hands down.
Code Better had a blog post recently that nearly matches my preferred way of organizing controllers and commands in an MVC app.
Well you can solve this issue easily by using the RenderAction. Just create separate controllers or introduce child actions in those controllers. Now in the main view call render actions with the required parameters. This will give you a nice composite view.
Why not have a service for this scenario to return a view model for you? That way you only have one dependency in the controller although your service may have the separate dependencies
the book dependency injection in .net suggests introducing "facade services" where you'd group related services together then inject the facade instead if you feel like you have too many constructor parameters.
Update: I finally had some available time, so I ended up finally creating an implementation for what I was talking about in my post below. My implementation is:
public class WindsorServiceFactory : IServiceFactory
{
protected IWindsorContainer _container;
public WindsorServiceFactory(IWindsorContainer windsorContainer)
{
_container = windsorContainer;
}
public ServiceType GetService<ServiceType>() where ServiceType : class
{
// Use windsor to resolve the service class. If the dependency can't be resolved throw an exception
try { return _container.Resolve<ServiceType>(); }
catch (ComponentNotFoundException) { throw new ServiceNotFoundException(typeof(ServiceType)); }
}
}
All that is needed now is to pass my IServiceFactory into my controller constructors, and I am now able to keep my constructors clean while still allowing easy (and flexible) unit tests. More details can be found at my blog blog if you are interested.
I have noticed the same issue creeping up in my MVC app, and your question got me thinking of how I want to handle this. As I'm using a command and query approach (where each action or query is a separate service class) my controllers are already getting out of hand, and will probably be even worse later on.
After thinking about this I think the route I am going to look at going is to create a SerivceFactory class, which would look like:
public class ServiceFactory
{
public ServiceFactory( UserService userService, CustomerService customerService, etc...)
{
// Code to set private service references here
}
public T GetService<T>(Type serviceType) where T : IService
{
// Determine if serviceType is a valid service type,
// and return the instantiated version of that service class
// otherwise throw error
}
}
Note that I wrote this up in Notepad++ off hand so I am pretty sure I got the generics part of the GetService method syntactically wrong , but that's the general idea. So then your controller will end up looking like this:
public class OrderController {
public OrderController(ServiceFactory factory) {
_factory = factory;
}
}
You would then have IoC instantiate your ServiceFactory instance, and everything should work as expected.
The good part about this is that if you realize that you have to use the ProductService class in your controller, you don't have to mess with controller's constructor at all, you only have to just call _factory.GetService() for your intended service in the action method.
Finally, this approach allows you to still mock services out (one of the big reasons for using IoC and passing them straight into the controller's constructor) by just creating a new ServiceFactory in your test code with the mocked services passed in (the rest left as null).
I think this will keep a good balance out the best world of flexibility and testability, and keeps service instantiation in one spot.
After typing this all out I'm actually excited to go home and implement this in my app :)
I need to make a web application and I want to use MVC. However, my Model can't be one of the standard Models -- the data is not stored in a database but instead in an external application accessible only via a API. Since this is the first MVC application I've implemented I'm relying on examples to understand how to go about it. I can't find any examples of a non-DB based Model. An example of a custom Model would be fine too. Can anyone point me to such a beast? Maybe MVC is just to new and none exist.
It seems like I might be able to get away with the DataSet Model, however I've not seen any examples of how to use this object. I expect an example of DataSet could help me also. (Maybe it is the same thing?)
Please note: I've seen countless examples of custom bindings. This is NOT what I want. I need an example of a custom Model which is not tied to a specific database/table.
UPDATE
I found a good example from MS located here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd405231.aspx
While this is the "answer" to my question, I don't really like it because it ties me to MS's view of the world. #Aaronaught, #jeroenh, and #tvanfosson give much better answers from a meta perspective of moving my understanding (and yours?) forward with respect to using MVC.
I'm giving the check to #Aaronaught because he actually has example code (which I asked for.) Thanks all and feel free to add even better answers if you have one.
In most cases it shouldn't matter what the backing source is for the actual application data; the model should be exactly the same. In fact, one of the main reasons for using something like a repository is so that you can easily change the underlying storage.
For example, I have an MVC app that uses a lot of web services - rarely does it have access to a local database, except for simple things like authentication and user profiles. A typical model class might look like this:
[DataContract(Namespace = "http://services.acme.com")]
public class Customer
{
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerID")]
public Guid ID { get; set; }
[DataMember(Name = "CustomerName")]
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Then I will have a repository interface that looks like this:
public interface ICustomerRepository
{
Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id);
IList<Customer> List();
}
The "API" is all encapsulated within the concrete repository:
public class AcmeWSCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client;
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository()
: this(new Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient())
public AcmeWSCustomerRepository(Acme.Services.CrmServiceSoapClient client)
{
if (client == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("client");
this.client = client;
}
public void Dispose()
{
client.SafeClose(); // Extension method to close WCF proxies
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return client.GetCustomerByID(id);
}
public IList<Customer> List()
{
return client.GetAllCustomers();
}
}
Then I'll also probably have a local testing repository with just a few customers that reads from something like an XML file:
public class LocalCustomerRepository : ICustomerRepository, IDisposable
{
private XDocument doc;
public LocalCustomerRepository(string fileName)
{
doc = XDocument.Load(fileName);
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
public Customer GetCustomerByID(Guid id)
{
return
(from c in doc.Descendants("Customer")
select new Customer(c.Element("ID").Value, c.Element("Name").Value))
.FirstOrDefault();
}
// etc.
}
The point I'm trying to make here is, well, this isn't tied to any particular database. One possible source in this case is a WCF service; another is a file on disk. Neither one necessarily has a compatible "model". In this case I've assumed that the WCF service exposes a model that I can map to directly with DataContract attributes, but the Linq-to-XML version is pure API; there is no model, it's all custom mapping.
A really good domain model should actually be completely independent of the true data source. I'm always a bit skeptical when people tell me that a Linq to SQL or Entity Framework model is good enough to use throughout the entire application/site. Very often these simply don't match the "human" model and simply creating a bunch of ViewModel classes isn't necessarily the answer.
In a sense, it's actually better if you're not handed an existing relational model. It forces you to really think about the best domain model for your application, and not necessarily the easiest one to map to some database. So if you don't already have a model from a database - build one! Just use POCO classes and decorate with attributes if necessary, then create repositories or services that map this domain model to/from the API.
I think what you are looking for is really a non-DB service layer. Models, typically, are relatively simple containers for data, though they may also contain business logic. It really sounds like what you have is a service to communicate with and need a layer to mediate between the service and your application, producing the appropriate model classes from the data returned by the service.
This tutorial may be helpful, but you'd need to replace the repository with your class that interacts with the service (instead of the DB).
There is no fixed prescription of what a "Model" in MVC should be, just that it should contain the data that needs to be shown on screen, and probably also manipulated.
In a well-designed MVC application, data access is abstracted away somehow anyway, typically using some form of the Repository pattern: you define an abstraction layer (say, an IRepository interface) that defines the contract needed to get and persist data. The actual implementation will usually call a database, but in your case should call your 'service API'.
Here is an example of an MVC application that calls out to a WCF service.