Ok, so I'm looking at NLog. Based on the usage, my application would be tied to the logging framework. How do I overcome this?
Also, when using NLog, I have to write too much monkey-code for every class I'm using this framework on. Is it a good practice to make one static class and access it from anywhere in my application?
example:
//the monkey code
private static Logger logger = LogManager.GetCurrentClassLogger();
//the coupling.
logger.Log(/*...*/);
Create your own logging interface:
public interface IMyOwnLogger {
void Log(string message);
}
Create implementation:
public class NLogLogger : IMyOwnLogger {
void Log(string message) {
StackFrame frame = new StackFrame(1, false);
Logger logger = LogManager.GetLogger(frame.GetMethod().DeclaringType.FullName);
logger.Log(/*...*/);
}
}
Bind IMyOwnLogger to NLogLogger in your IOC container.
Inject where needed (or use IOC.Get<IMyOwnLogger>()).
EDIT:
Idsa made a comment about loosing calling class. Remember you can always use stack trace:
var method = (new StackTrace()).GetFrame(1).GetMethod()
and extract calling class from there.
EDIT:
This is how GetCurrentClassLogger in NLog looks like, so using StackTrace in our class doesn't create additional overhead:
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining)]
public static Logger GetCurrentClassLogger()
{
#if SILVERLIGHT
StackFrame frame = new StackTrace().GetFrame(1);
#else
StackFrame frame = new StackFrame(1, false);
#endif
return globalFactory.GetLogger(frame.GetMethod().DeclaringType.FullName);
}
Personally, I avoid tying any logging framework to my code by using
TraceSource to instrument my code. I then use a logging framework (typically Enterprise Library's Logging Application Block) to "listen" to trace output at runtime and do whatever is necessary with that information. (i.e. write to a database, send emails, etc)
Related
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;
}
}
What is the preferred way to remove a default pipeline contributor (OpenRasta 2.0.3)?
I haven't found a lot on that on the net, but one way seems to be writing a custom DependencyRegistrar, i.e. deriving from DefaultDependencyRegistrar and then e.g. overriding AddDefaultContributors(). Apart from that I doubt that it's the best way to remove just a single pipeline contributor, it seems to need additional per-host (ASP vs. InMemory) work, whereas I would consider messing with pipeline handlers to be a host-agnostic affair.
But even if I'd go this route, this guy here seems to have tried it without success: http://groups.google.com/group/openrasta/browse_thread/thread/d72b91e5994f402b
I tried similar things, but so far couldn't make my custom registrar replace the default.
So what's the simplest and best way to remove a default pipeline contributor, preferable in a host agnostic way? Is there a working example somewhere?
No, you just need to derive from the registrar and use the protected members that are available to imperatively remove the types you don't want auto-registered.
The registrar needs to be registered in your container before you provide it to OpenRasta, otherwise the type has been resolved already.
Answering myself with working code snippets as they might be helpful to others.
So it looks like removing default pipeline contributors cannot be done
in a host agnostic way (although I don't see why OpenRasta could not
be modified to allow for easy deletion of handlers in the future).
The 2 classes that need to be written are in fact independent of the
host(s) used:
public class MyDependencyRegistrar : DefaultDependencyRegistrar
{
protected override void AddDefaultContributors()
{
base.AddDefaultContributors();
PipelineContributorTypes.Remove(typeof(HandlerResolverContributor));
// If we remove the only contributor for the 'well-known'
// IHandlerSelection stage, like done above, we need to add
// another one implements IHandlerSelection, otherwise
// we'll run into errors (and what's the point of a pipeline
// without a handler selector anyway?). So let's do that here:
AddPipelineContributor<MyOwnHandlerResolverContributor>();
}
}
In order to make that Registrar available, we need to create an accessor
like the following, which then needs to be set in the various hosts:
public class MyDependencyResolverAccessor : IDependencyResolverAccessor
{
InternalDependencyResolver resolver;
public IDependencyResolver Resolver
{
get
{
if (resolver == null)
{
resolver = new InternalDependencyResolver();
resolver.AddDependency<IDependencyRegistrar, MyDependencyRegistrar>();
}
return resolver;
}
}
}
For Asp.Net, this seems to work for me:
public class Global : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
OpenRastaModule.Host.DependencyResolverAccessor =
new MyDependencyResolverAccessor();
For InMemoryHost, which I use for integration testing and in-process access
of my handlers, I haven't found a way around copying the whole class
InMemoryHost and modifying it to my needs. In fact, we don't need
MyDependencyResolverAccessor in this case, as InMemoryHost implements
IDependencyResolverAccessor already. So here's how it could look like. Only the
last line was actually added to the existing code in InMemoryHost:
public class TwinMemoryHost : IHost, IDependencyResolverAccessor, IDisposable
{
readonly IConfigurationSource _configuration;
bool _isDisposed;
public TwinMemoryHost(IConfigurationSource configuration)
{
_configuration = configuration;
Resolver = new InternalDependencyResolver();
Resolver.AddDependency<IDependencyRegistrar, MyDependencyRegistrar>();
...
I have a simple asp mvc app which uses MEF, and there is a route which can be accessed by admins to refresh the directory catalog and compose parts, however one thing I am trying to find out how to do is notify some code when a plugin is loaded / unloaded.
The scenario is that when plugins are loaded they register the routes they need, however when they are unloaded I need them to unload their routes, as subsequent refreshes try to re-register the routes and it bombs.
Are there any events which I can hook into from the MEF objects?
The plugin container is something like:
[ImportMany(typeof(ISomePluginInterface))]
IEnumerable<ISomePluginInterface> Plugins {get; private set;}
Each ISomePluginInterface has something like:
public interface ISomePluginInterface
{
public void PluginLoaded();
public void PluginUnloaded();
}
This is similar in theory to this Stackoverflow question and this was my answer. In your case, you have a similar need, you want to fire an event when the plugin is started, and clean up when it is no longer needed.
Using the same concept, you can use the InterceptingCatalog to register routes, but I wouldn't make it an explicit part of the interface definition to do so, instead, you need to look at how your components fit together as a whole, e.g., if the operations for registering routes won't be used for all plugins, what is the purpose of them existing in the interface definition. You could break out the route registration into a separate interface, the IRouteRegistrar, and use intercepting strategies to automatically call the appropriate registration method when the plugin is used for the first time, e.g., I could break out the interface into:
public interface IPlugin
{
void SomeOperation();
}
public interface IRouteRegistrar : IDisposable
{
void RegisterRoutes();
}
The latter interface does the work of registering routes, and we use the Dispose pattern to ensure that it is cleaned up after it is finished with. Therefore, A sample plugin could resemble:
[Export(typeof(IPlugin))]
public class MyPlugin : IPlugin, IRouteRegistrar
{
public void SomeOperation() { }
public void RegisterRoutes()
{
// Register routes here...
}
protected virtual Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
// Unregister routes here...
}
}
void IDisposable.Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
}
}
I only export as an IPlugin, but I ensure my plugin also implements the IRouteRegistrar. The way we use that, is with a strategy:
public class RouteRegistrarStrategy : IExportedValueInteceptor
{
public object Intercept(object value)
{
var registrar = value as IRouteRegistrar;
if (registrar != null)
registrar.RegisterRoutes();
return value;
}
}
Now, only if the plugin supports that interface will it register routes. This also enables you to apply the route registration interface to other plugins which could be used in a different way. You gain a bit more flexibility. To use that strategy in code, you need to add the MefContrib project to your app, and do a little more wire up:
var catalog = new DirectoryCatalog(".\bin");
var config = new InterceptionConfiguration().AddInterceptor(new RouteRegistrarStrategy());
var interceptingCatalog = new InterceptingCatalog(catalog, configuration);
var container = new CompositionContainer(interceptingCatalog);
I have been doing my first Test Driven Development project recently and have been learning Ninject and MOQ. This is my first attempt at all this. I've found the TDD approach has been thought provoking, and Ninject and MOQ have been great. The project I am working on has not particularly been the best fit for Ninject as it is a highly configurable C# program that is designed to test the use of a web service interface.
I have broken it up into modules and have interfaces all over the shop, but I am still finding that I am having to use lots of constructor arguments when getting an implementation of a service from the Ninject kernel. For example;
In my Ninject module;
Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>()
My DirEnum class;
public class DirEnum : IDirEnum
{
public DirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
....
In my Configurator class (this is the main entry point) that hooks all the services together;
class Configurator
{
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
ArgParser argParser = new ArgParser(args);
IDirEnum dirEnum = kernel.Get<IDirEnum>(
new ConstructorArgument("filePath", argParser.filePath),
new ConstructorArgument("fileFilter", argParser.fileFilter),
new ConstructorArgument("includeSubDirs", argParser.subDirs)
);
filePath, fileFilter and includeSubDirs are command line options to the program. So far so good. However, being a conscientious kind of guy, I have a test covering this bit of code. I'd like to use a MOQ object. I have created a Ninject module for my tests;
public class TestNinjectModule : NinjectModule
{
internal IDirEnum mockDirEnum {set;get};
Bind<IDirEnum>().ToConstant(mockDirEnum);
}
And in my test I use it like this;
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
// Arrange
TestNinjectModule testmodule = new TestNinjectModule();
Mock<IDirEnum> mockDirEnum = new Mock<IDirEnum>();
testModule.mockDirEnum = mockDirEnum;
// Act
Configurator configurator = new Configurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices();
// Assert
here lies my problem! How do I test what values were passed to the
constructor arguments???
So the above shows my problem. How can I test what arguments were passed to the ConstructorArguments of the mock object? My guess is that Ninject is dispensing of the ConstuctorArguments in this case as the Bind does not require them? Can I test this with a MOQ object or do I need to hand code a mock object that implements DirEnum and accepts and 'records' the constructor arguments?
n.b. this code is 'example' code, i.e. I have not reproduced my code verbatim, but I think I have expressed enough to hopefully convey the issues? If you need more context, please ask!
Thanks for looking. Be gentle, this is my first time ;-)
Jim
There are a few problems with the way you designed your application. First of all, you are calling the Ninject kernel directly from within your code. This is called the Service Locator pattern and it is considered an anti-pattern. It makes testing your application much harder and you are already experiencing this. You are trying to mock the Ninject container in your unit test, which complicates things tremendously.
Next, you are injecting primitive types (string, bool) in the constructor of your DirEnum type. I like how MNrydengren states it in the comments:
take "compile-time" dependencies
through constructor parameters and
"run-time" dependencies through method
parameters
It's hard for me to guess what that class should do, but since you are injecting these variables that change at run-time into the DirEnum constructor, you end up with a hard to test application.
There are multiple ways to fix this. Two that come in mind are the use of method injection and the use of a factory. Which one is feasible is up to you.
Using method injection, your Configurator class will look like this:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnum dirEnum;
// Injecting IDirEnum through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnum dirEnum)
{
this.dirEnum = dirEnum;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Inject the arguments into a method
this.dirEnum.SomeOperation(
argParser.filePath
argParser.fileFilter
argParser.subDirs);
}
}
Using a factory, you would need to define a factory that knows how to create new IDirEnum types:
interface IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs);
}
Your Configuration class can now depend on the IDirEnumFactory interface:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnumFactory dirFactory;
// Injecting the factory through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnumFactory dirFactory)
{
this.dirFactory = dirFactory;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Creating a new IDirEnum using the factory
var dirEnum = this.dirFactory.CreateDirEnum(
parser.filePath
parser.fileFilter
parser.subDirs);
}
}
See how in both examples the dependencies get injected into the Configurator class. This is called the Dependency Injection pattern, opposed to the Service Locator pattern, where the Configurator asks for its dependencies by calling into the Ninject kernel.
Now, since your Configurator is completely free from any IoC container what so ever, you can now easily test this class, by injecting a mocked version of the dependency it expects.
What is left is to configure the Ninject container in the top of your application (in DI terminology: the composition root). With the method injection example, your container configuration would stay the same, with the factory example, you will need to replace the Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>() line with something as follows:
public static void Bootstrap()
{
kernel.Bind<IDirEnumFactory>().To<DirEnumFactory>();
}
Of course, you will need to create the DirEnumFactory:
class DirEnumFactory : IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
return new DirEnum(filePath, fileFilter, includeSubDirs);
}
}
WARNING: Do note that factory abstractions are in most cases not the best design, as explained here.
The last thing you need to do is to create a new Configurator instance. You can simply do this as follows:
public static Configurator CreateConfigurator()
{
return kernel.Get<Configurator>();
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Bootstrap():
var configurator = CreateConfigurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices(args);
}
Here we call the kernel. Although calling the container directly should be prevented, there will always at least be one place in your application where you call the container, simply because it must wire everything up. However, we try to minimize the number of times the container is called directly, because it improves -among other things- the testability of our code.
See how I didn't really answer your question, but showed a way to work around the problem very effectively.
You might still want to test your DI configuration. That's very valid IMO. I do this in my applications. But for this, you often don't need the DI container, or even if your do, this doesn't mean that all your tests should have a dependency on the container. This relationship should only exist for the tests that test the DI configuration itself. Here is a test:
[TestMethod]
public void DependencyConfiguration_IsConfiguredCorrectly()
{
// Arrange
Program.Bootstrap();
// Act
var configurator = Program.CreateConfigurator();
// Assert
Assert.IsNotNull(configurator);
}
This test indirectly depends on Ninject and it will fail when Ninject is not able to construct a new Configurator instance. When you keep your constructors clean from any logic and only use it for storing the taken dependencies in private fields, you can run this, without the risk of calling out to a database, web service or what so ever.
I hope this helps.
Recently I've switched to Ninject 2.0 release and started getting the following error:
Error occured: Error activating SomeController
More than one matching bindings are available.
Activation path:
1) Request for SomeController
Suggestions:
1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for SomeController only once.
However, I'm unable to find certain reproduction path. Sometimes it occurs, sometimes it does not.
I'm using NinjectHttpApplication for automatic controllers injection. Controllers are defined in separate assembly:
public class App : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override IKernel CreateKernel()
{
INinjectModule[] modules = new INinjectModule[] {
new MiscModule(),
new ProvidersModule(),
new RepositoryModule(),
new ServiceModule()
};
return new StandardKernel(modules);
}
protected override void OnApplicationStarted()
{
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
RegisterAllControllersIn("Sample.Mvc");
base.OnApplicationStarted();
}
/* ............. */
}
Maybe someone is familiar with this error.
Any advice?
I finally figured this issue out recently. Apparently, the NinjectHttpApplication.RegisterAllControllersIn() function doesn't do all of the proper bindings needed. It binds your concrete controller implementations to IController requests. For example, if you have a controller class called SampleMvcController, which inherits from System.Web.Mvc.Controller. It would do the following named binding during application start:
kernel.Bind<IController>().To(SampleMvcController).InTransientScope().Named("SampleMvc");
But when debugging the NinjectControllerFactory, I find that request are being made for the Ninject Kernel to return an object for the class "SampleMvcController", not for a concrete implementation of IController, using the named binding of "SampleMvc".
Because of this, when the first web request that involves the SampleMvcController is made, it creates a binding of SampleMvcController to itself. This is not thread safe though. So if you have several web requests being made at once, the bindings can potentially happen more than once, and now you are left with this error for having multiple bindings for the SampleMvcController.
You can verify this by quickly refreshing an MVC URL, right after causing your web application to restart.
The fix:
The simplest way to fix this issue is to create a new NinjectModule for your controller bindings, and to load this module during application start. Within this module, you self bind each of your defined controllers, like so:
class ControllerModule : StandardModule {
public override Load() {
Bind<SampleMvcController>().ToSelf();
Bind<AnotherMvcController>().ToSelf();
}
}
But if you don't mind changing the Ninject source code, you can modify the RegisterAllControllersIn() function to self bind each controller it comes across.
I have been dealing with this problem for months. I tried so many options but was unable to come to a solution. I knew that it was a threading problem because it would only occur when there was a heavy load on my site. Just recently a bug was reported and fixed in the ninject source code that solves this problem.
Here is a reference to the issue. It was fixed in build 2.1.0.70 of the Ninject source. The key change was in KernelBase.cs by removing the line
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
and replacing it with
lock (planner)
{
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
}
To use this new build with MVC you will need to get the latest build of Ninject then get the latest build of ninject.web.mvc. Build ninject.web.mvc with the new Ninject build.
I have been using this new build for about a week with a heavy load and no problems. That is the longest it has gone without a problem so I would consider this to be a solution.
Are you sure you really are creating a single completely new Kernel from scratch in your OnApplicationStarted every time it's invoked ? If you're not and you're actually creating it once but potentially running the registration bit twice. Remember that you're not guaranteed to only ever have one App class instantiated ever within a given AppDomain.
My answer was a bit more obvious.
I had declared the binding for one of my controllers more than once during refactor of my code.
I added this to my global.ascx.cs file:
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly)
{
RegisterAllControllersInFix(assembly, GetControllerName);
}
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly, Func<Type, string> namingConvention)
{
foreach (Type type in assembly.GetExportedTypes().Where(IsController))
Kernel.Bind(type).ToSelf();
}
private static bool IsController(Type type)
{
return typeof(IController).IsAssignableFrom(type) && type.IsPublic && !type.IsAbstract && !type.IsInterface;
}
private static string GetControllerName(Type type)
{
string name = type.Name.ToLowerInvariant();
if (name.EndsWith("controller"))
name = name.Substring(0, name.IndexOf("controller"));
return name;
}
Then called it from my OnApplicationStarted() method as follows:
RegisterAllControllersIn(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
Difficult to know whether this fixed it though because it's so intermittent.