Greetings,
Trying to sort through the best way to provide access to my Entity Manager while keeping the context open through the request to permit late loading. I am seeing a lot of examples like the following:
public class SomeController
{
MyEntities entities = new MyEntities();
}
The problem I see with this setup is that if you have a layer of business classes that you want to make calls into, you end up having to pass the manager as a parameter to these methods, like so:
public static GetEntity(MyEntities entityManager, int id)
{
return entityManager.Series.FirstOrDefault(s => s.SeriesId == id);
}
Obviously I am looking for a good, thread safe way, to provide the entityManager to the method without passing it. The way also needs to be unit testable, my previous attempts with putting it in Session did not work for unit tests.
I am actually looking for the recommended way of dealing with the Entity Framework in ASP .NET MVC for an enterprise level application.
Thanks in advance
Entity Framework v1.0 excels in Windows Forms applications where you can use the object context for as long as you like. In asp.net and mvc in particular it's a bit harder. My solution to this was to make the repositories or entity managers more like services that MVC could communicate with. I created a sort of generic all purpose base repository I could use whenever I felt like it and just stopped bothering too much about doing it right. I would try to avoid leaving the object context open for even a ms longer than is absolutely needed in a web application.
Have a look at EF4. I started using EF in production environment when that was in beta 0.75 or something similar and had no real issues with it except for it being "hard work" sometimes.
You might want to look at the Repository pattern (here's a write up of Repository with Linq to SQL).
The basic idea would be that instead of creating a static class, you instantiate a version of the Repository. You can pass in your EntityManager as a parameter to the class in the constructor -- or better yet, a factory that can create your EntityManager for the class so that it can do unit of work instantiation of the manager.
For MVC I use a base controller class. In this class you could create your entity manager factory and make it a property of the class so deriving classes have access to it. Allow it to be injected from a constructor but created with the proper default if the instance passed in is null. Whenever a controller method needs to create a repository, it can use this instance to pass into the Repository so that it can create the manager required.
In this way, you get rid of the static methods and allow mock instances to be used in your unit tests. By passing in a factory -- which ought to create instances that implement interfaces, btw -- you decouple your repository from the actual manager class.
Don't lazy load entities in the view. Don't make business layer calls in the view. Load all the entities the view will need up front in the controller, compute all the sums and averages the view will need up front in the controller, etc. After all, that's what the controller is for.
Related
I'm building a relatively simple webapp in ASP.NET MVC 4, using Entity Framework to talk to MS SQL Server. There's lots of scope to expand the application in future, so I'm aiming for a pattern that maximises reusability and adaptability in the code, to save work later on. The idea is:
Unit of Work pattern, to save problems with the database by only committing changes at the end of each set of actions.
Generic repository using BaseRepository<T> because the repositories will be mostly the same; the odd exception can extend and add its additional methods.
Dependency injection to bind those repositories to the IRepository<T> that the controllers will be using, so that I can switch data storage methods and such with minimal fuss (not just for best practice; there is a real chance of this happening). I'm using Ninject for this.
I haven't really attempted something like this from scratch before, so I've been reading up and I think I've got myself muddled somewhere. So far, I have an interface IRepository<T> which is implemented by BaseRepository<T>, which contains an instance of the DataContext which is passed into its constructor. This interface has methods for Add, Update, Delete, and various types of Get (single by ID, single by predicate, group by predicate, all). The only repository that doesn't fit this interface (so far) is the Users repository, which adds User Login(string username, string password) to allow login (the implementation of which handles all the salting, hashing, checking etc).
From what I've read, I now need a UnitOfWork class that contains instances of all the repositories. This unit of work will expose the repositories, as well as a SaveChanges() method. When I want to manipulate data, I instantiate a unit of work, access the repositories on it (which are instantiated as needed), and then save. If anything fails, nothing changes in the database because it won't reach the single save at the end. This is all fine. My problem is that all the examples I can find seem to do one of two things:
Some pass a data context into the unit of work, from which they retrieve the various repositories. This negates the point of DI by having my Entity-Framework-specific DbContext (or a class inherited from it) in my unit of work.
Some call a Get method to request a repository, which is the service locator pattern, which is at least unpopular, if not an antipattern, and either way I'd like to avoid it here.
Do I need to create an interface for my data source and inject that into the unit of work as well? I can't find any documentation on this that's clear and/or complete enough to explain.
EDIT
I think I've been overcomplicating it; I'm now folding my repository and unit of work into one - my repository is entirely generic so this just gives me a handful of generic methods (Add, Remove, Update, and a few kinds of Get) plus a SaveChanges method. This gives me a worker class interface; I can then have a factory class that provides instances of it (also interfaced). If I also have this worker implement IDisposable then I can use it in a scoped block. So now my controllers can do something like this:
using (var worker = DataAccess.BeginTransaction())
{
Product item = worker.Get<Product>(p => p.ID == prodName);
//stuff...
worker.SaveChanges();
}
If something goes wrong before the SaveChanges(), then all changes are discarded when it exits the scope block and the worker is disposed. I can use dependency injection to provide concrete implementations to the DataAccess field, which is passed into the base controller constructor. Business logic is all in the controller and works with IQueryable objects, so I can switch out the DataAccess provider object for anything I like as long as it implements the IRepository interface; there's nothing specific to Entity Framework anywhere.
So, any thoughts on this implementation? Is this on the right track?
I prefer to have UnitOfWork or a UnitOfWorkFactory injected into the repositories, that way I need not bother it everytime a new reposiory is added. Responsibility of UnitOfWork would be to just manage the transaction.
Here is an example of what I mean.
Our domain model is very anemic right now. Our entities are mostly empty shells, almost purely designed for holding values and navigating to collections.
We are using EF 4.1 code-first ORM, and the design so far has been to shield our novice developers against the dreaded "LINQ to Entities cannot translate blablabla to a store expression" exception when querying against the context during early iterations.
We have various aggregate root repository interfaces over EF. However some blocks of code in the impls seems like they should be the domain's responsibility. As long as the repository interface is declared in the domain, and the impl is in the infrastructure (dependency injected), is it considered bad design to pass a repository interface as an argument to a method on an entity (or other domain) class?
For example, would this be bad?
public class EntityAbc {
public void SaveTo(IEntityAbcRepository repos) {...}
public void DeleteFrom(IEntityAbcRepository repos) {...}
}
What if a particular entity needed access to other aggregate root repositories? Would this be ok or not, and why?
public void Save() {
var abcRepos = DependencyInjector.Current.GetService<IEntityAbcRepository>();
var xyzRepos = DependencyInjector.Current.GetService<IEntityXyzRepository>();
// work with repositories
}
Update 1
I did not mention moving code to an application layer because I consider some of the code that uses IEntityAbcRepository to involve business rule enforcement. The repository impl should be as vanilla as possible, right? Its main responsibility should just be a simple abstraction over the ORM, allowing you to find / add / update / delete entities. Wrong?
Also, this question applies to methods on other non-entity domain classes -- factories, services, whatever pattern may be appropriate. Point being, I'm asking the question about any method on a domain class, not just an entity class. #Eranga, this is one place where you can use constructor injection because factories & services are not part of the ORM.
The application layer could then coordinate flow by injecting a repository impl into its constructor, and passing it as an argument to a domain service or factory. Is this bad practice?
Update 2
Adding another clarification here. What if the domain only needs access to the IEntityAbcRepository in order to execute its Find() method(s)? In the example above, the SaveTo and DeleteFrom methods would not invoke any add / update / delete methods on the repository interface.
So far we've combined the find / add / update / delete methods on a single aggregate root repository interface for simplicity. But I suppose there's nothing stopping us from separating them out into 2 interfaces, like so:
IEntityAbcReadRepository <-- defines all find method signatures
IEntityAbcWriteRepository <-- defines all add / update / delete method sigs
In this case, would it be bad practice to pass IEntityAbcReadRepository as a parameter to a domain method?
Your first approach is better compared to the second approach which uses "Service Locator" pattern. Dependencies are more obvious in the first approach.
Here are some links that explains why "Service Locator" is a bad choice
Is it bad to use servicelocation instead of constructor injection
...
Singleton Vs ServiceLocator
Say no to ServiceLocator
Both of these solutions stem from the fact that EF does not allow you to use constructor injection. However you can use property injection as explained in this answer. But that does not guarantee that mandatory dependencies are present.
So your first approach is the better solution.
Short answer: Yes!
Long answer:
Consider creating an AbcService in your application service layer. This service layer sits between your domain and your infrastructure. You can inject as many repositories into AbcService as you want. Then let the service handle SaveTo and DeleteFrom.
SaveTo and DeleteFrom, unless you are saving to and deleting from another entity, i.e. no data access is involved, are methods that sound like they shouldn't be on a domain entity, IMO.
Having persistence logic in your domain entities is IMO bad design in the first place. Good separation of concerns should mean that domain/business logic is separated from persistence logic, so your domain classes should be persistence ignorant.
Previous Entity Framwork versions might not have allowed such a separation but I think most recent versions solved that problem. I'm not that familiar with EF though, so I might be wrong.
With that said, where can you put methods such as Save() and Delete() ?
If you want to add to/remove your entity from its repository, Repository.Add() and Repository.Remove() are good choices. A repository basically serves as an illusion of an in-memory collection of your entities, so it makes sense for it to behave just like a collection or a list with the appropriate methods.
If you want to persist changes made to an existing entity, there are other ways to do that. You could have a Repository.Save() method but some consider it bad practice. Oftentimes the changes are part of a higher level operation handled in a transaction-like context such as a Unit of Work, in that case you can let the operation persist all the objects in its scope when it finishes. For instance, if you use an Open Session in View approach for your web application, changes are automatically persisted when the request ends.
Or you can rely on an ad-hoc call of your ORM's Save() method for your particular entity which hopefully shouldn't be grafted onto the entity code itself (with NHibernate, for instance, it's available at runtime on the proxied entity).
[Update]
Putting that in perspective with your subsequent questions (though I'm not sure I understand all of them well) :
I see no value in splitting your repository into a ReadRepository and a WriteRepository. In DDD, a repository's responsibility is clearly to provide a collection to query from as well as add to or remove from. It's still quite cohesive that way.
It's not an entity's responsibility to fiddle with its own persistence, so it shouldn't be aware of its own repository for that precise purpose. Otherwise, it's pretty rare that an entity rightfully needs to have knowledge of its own repository (usually it means that the entity has a relationship to another entity of the same type, like parent/child, and you want to get the other entity from the repository)
However, entities and other domain objects obviously do need to obtain references to other entities at times. In that case, try to get these references through traversal of other objects within the boundary of your aggregate first before looking for a repository. If you absolutely need a repository to get the object you want, it's a good idea to inject the repository through any flavour of injection you like. As Eranga pointed out, service locator might turn out to be a sub-par dependency injection ersatz though.
Last thing, the kind of injection you mentioned - SaveTo(IEntityAbcRepository repos) - is peculiar because it is neither constructor nor setter injection, but rather an ephemeral injection lasting just the time of a method. It implies that whoever calls your method must know what repository to pass at that precise moment, which is not obvious. It might be useful, but I'd say it's not the form of injection you would typically mainly use.
I have an application using the Entity Framework code first. My setup is that I have a core service which all other services inherit from. The core service contains the following code:
public static DatabaseContext db = new DatabaseContext();
public CoreService()
{
db.Database.Initialize(force: false);
}
Then, another class will inherit from CoreService and when it needs to query the database will just run some code such as:
db.Products.Where(blah => blah.IsEnabled);
However, I seem to be getting conflicting stories as to which is best.
Some people advise NOT to do what I'm doing.
Other people say that you should define the context for each class (rather than use a base class to instantiate it)
Others say that for EVERY database call, I should wrap it in a using block. I've never seen this in any of the examples from Microsoft.
Can anyone clarify?
I'm currently at a point where refactoring is possible and quite quick, so I'd like some general advice if possible.
You should wrap one context per web request. Hold it open for as long as you need it, then get rid of it when you are finished. That's what the using is for.
Do NOT wrap up your context in a Singleton. That is not a good idea.
If you are working with clients like WinForms then I think you would wrap the context around each form but that's not my area.
Also, make sure you know when you are going to be actually executing against your datasource so you don't end up enumerating multiple times when you might only need to do so once to work with the results.
Lastly, you have seen this practice from MS as lots of the ADO stuff supports being wrapped in a using but hardly anyone realises this.
I suggest to use design principle "prefer composition over inheritance".
You can have the reference of the database context in your base class.
Implement a singleton for getting the DataContext and assign the datacontext to this reference.
The conflicts you get are not related to sharing the context between classes but are caused by the static declaration of your context. If you make the context an instance field of your service class, so that every service instance gets its own context, there should be no issues.
The using pattern you mention is not required but instead you should make sure that context.Dispose() is called at the service disposal.
Please be gentle, I'm a newb to this IoC/MVC thing but I am trying. I understand the value of DI for testing purposes and how IoC resolves dependencies at run-time and have been through several examples that make sense for your standard CRUD operations...
I'm starting a new project and cannot come up with a clean way to accomplish user permissions. My website is mostly secured with any pages with functionality (except signup, FAQ, about us, etc) behind a login. I have a custom identity that has several extra properties which control access to data... So....
Using Ninject, I've bound a concrete type* to a method (Bind<MyIdentity>().ToMethod(c => MyIdentity.GetIdentity()); so that when I add MyIdentity to a constructor, it is injected based on the results of the method call.
That all works well. Is it appropriate to (from the GetIdentity() method) directly query the request cookies object (via FormsAuthentication)? In testing the controllers, I can pass in an identity, but the GetIdentity() method will be essentially untestable...
Also, in the GetIdentity() method, I will query the database. Should I manually create a concrete instance of a repository?
Or is there a better way all together?
I think you are reasonably on the right track, since you abstracted away database communication and ASP.NET dependencies from your unit tests. Don't worry that you can't test everything in your tests. There will always be lines of code in your application that are untestable. The GetIdentity is a good example. Somewhere in your application you need to communicate with framework specific API and this code can not be covered by your unit tests.
There might still be room for improvement though. While an untested GetIdentity isn't a problem, the fact that it is actually callable by the application. It just hangs there, waiting for someone to accidentally call it. So why not abstract the creation of identities. For instance, create an abstract factory that knows how to get the right identity for the current context. You can inject this factory, instead of injecting the identity itself. This allows you to have an implementation defined near the application's composition root and outside reach of the rest of the application. Besides that, the code communicates more clearly what is happening. Nobody has to ask "which identity do I actually get?", because it will be clear by the method on the factory they call.
Here's an example:
public interface IIdentityProvider
{
// Bit verbose, but veeeery clear,
// but pick another name if you like,
MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser();
}
In your composition root you can have an implementation of this:
private sealed class AspNetIdentityProvider : IIdentityProvider
{
public MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser()
{
// here the code of the MyIdentity.GetIdentity() method.
}
}
As a trick I sometimes have my test objects implement both the factory and product, just for convenience during unit tesing. For instance:
private sealed class FakeMyIdentity
: FakeMyIdentity, IIdentityProvider
{
public MyIdentity GetIdentityForCurrentUser()
{
// just returning itself.
return this;
}
}
This way you can just inject a FakeMyIdentity in a constructor that expects an IIdentityProvider. I found out that this doesn’t sacrifice readability of the tests (which is important).
Of course you want to have as little code as possible in the AspNetIdentityProvider, because you can't test it (automatically). Also make sure that your MyIdentity class doesn't have any dependency on any framework specific parts. If so you need to abstract that as well.
I hope this makes sense.
There are two things I'd kinda do differently here...
I'd use a custom IPrincipal object with all the properties required for your authentication needs. Then I'd use that in conjunction with custom cookie creation and the AuthenticateRequest event to avoid database calls on every request.
If my IPrincipal / Identity was required inside another class, I'd pass it as a method parameter rather than have it as a dependency on the class it's self.
When going down this route I use custom model binders so they are then parameters to my actions rather than magically appearing inside my action methods.
NOTE: This is just the way I've been doing things, so take with a grain of salt.
Sorry, this probably throws up more questions than answers. Feel free to ask more questions about my approach.
I recently followed Stephen Walther through creating a generic repository for your data models using the Entity Framework with the following link, http://bit.ly/7BoMjT
In this blog he briefly talks about creating a generic repository and why it's suggested to do so (to be clear of friction). The blog itself doesn't go into great detail on how to inject the GenericRepository into your project for that you'll need to download his source code of Common Code. However, once I finally understood the importance of the Repository pattern, and how it makes a difference in the data models I create in ASP.Net MVC I was wondering if I could do something similar to my Controllers and Views?
Can I create a ControllerRepository or ControllerFactory(as I've Bing'd it) and create a generic controller with 5 ActionResults and depending on what I inject into my GenericRepository datamodel (i.e. I have DellXPSComputers, GateWayComputers, HPComputers as a single db datamodel)
And actually have only one controller besides the Generic one I create that will go and grab the right datamodel, and view?
If so, what is the best way to implement this?
You could create a generic controller factory, but I don't see many scenarios why you'd ever want to. Except in your tests and redirects, you'd never be calling a controller method directly (vs. a repository method which you're calling in many places).
Yes! You absolutely can!
I've done it in the past with great success. The result is that you end up with a web application layer surfacing your repos with almost no code (just what's necessary to provide CRUD services for your entities).
Ultimately, you'll end up with something like this in your implementation of CreateController:
Type controllerType = controllerbase.MakeGenericType(entityType, datacontextType);
var controller = Activator.CreateInstance(controllerType) as IController;
return controller;
Wiser men than me would use a IOC framework to inject the types, I'm using plain old reflection and reading the type names out of the route values in URLs like:
http://computer/repo/entityname/by/fieldname/value.html
Good luck!