I am using windsor castle as my IoC container, and has run in to a bit of a problem. This is best explained in code, so I´ll give it a try.
I have a factory class, that should provide me with implementations of a certain interface:
public interface IObjectCreatorFactory
{
IObjectCreator GetObjectCreator(Type objectType);
}
public interface IObjectCreator
{
T CreateObject<T>(IDataRow data);
bool SupportsType(Type type);
}
Implementation of the factory class could look like this, though I am not sure this is the way to go:
public interface ObjectCreatorFactory:IObjectCreatorFactory
{
IEnumerable specificCreators;
IObjectCreator defaultCreator;
public ObjectCreatorFactory(IEnumerable<IObjectCreator> specificCreators, IObjectCreator defaultCreator)
{
this.specificCreators= specificCreators;
this.defaultCreator= defaultCreator;
}
public IObjectCreator GetObjectCreator(Type objectType)
{
foreach (IObjectCreator creator in specificCreators)
{
if (creator.SupportsType(objectType))
{
return creator;
}
}
return defaultCreator;
}
}
Now this would work out ok, but if I want my IObjectCreator instance to create child objects using a specific IObjectCreator, i would like to call ObjectCreatorFactory, and this obviously results in a circular reference:
public void SpecificObjectCreator:IObjectCreator
{
IObjectCreatorFactory objCreatorFactory;
public SpecificObjectCreator(IObjectCreatorFactory objCreatorFactory)
{
this.objCreatorFactory = objCreatorFactory;
}
T CreateObject<T>(IDataRow data)
{
T obj = new T;
ChildObject childObject = objCreatorFactory.GetObjectCreator(typeof(ChildObject)).CreateObject<ChildObject>(data);
.......
}
bool SupportsType(Type type);
}
This does not work out. What would be the way to go for this scenario, where the created objects are refering back to the factory for child object creators?
I would simply move the factory out of the constructors of the various specific object creators, and introduce a method on the IObjectCreator interface instead, responsible for initialising the creators:
public interface IObjectCreator
{
T CreateObject<T>(IDataRow data);
bool SupportsType(Type type);
void Initialize(IObjectCreatorFactory factory);
}
And then just invoke Initialze(this) on each object creator passed into the factory.
In the past I've used custom life cycle stages to take care of automatically invoking "post-construction" setup of components to both avoid circular dependencies and also to take care of other associated concerns (i.e. applying additional component configuration from an external source like a database) - but it's probably overkill for what you need.
Related
I am about to switch from Windsor to Structuremap for an existing project with ~100 registered components (mostly singletons).
All components inherit from a common base class that provides logging and health tracking and for this reason, contains a "Name" property used to identify component instances.
With Windsor, it was possible to set the component's Name property to the name that was used to register the component in the IOC container (We used a Facility for this).
My question: Is something like this possible with Structuremap?
(I dream of a call to c.For<IFoo>.Use<Bar>.Named("Doe") that magically results in instanceOfBar.Name = "Doe" somewhere.)
Here is what I tried:
using System;
using StructureMap;
using StructureMap.Interceptors;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
interface IServiceA { }
interface IServiceB { }
class Base
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
class ComponentA : Base, IServiceA { }
class ComponentB : Base, IServiceB
{
public ComponentB(IServiceA serviceA)
{
this.ServiceA = serviceA;
}
public IServiceA ServiceA { get; private set; }
}
class SetNameInterceptor : TypeInterceptor
{
public bool MatchesType(Type type) { return true; }
public object Process(object target, IContext context)
{
// *** Any other way? This does not work...
string name = context.BuildStack.Current != null ? context.BuildStack.Current.Name : context.RequestedName;
((Base)target).Name = name;
return target;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Container container = new Container(c =>
{
c.RegisterInterceptor(new SetNameInterceptor());
c.For<IServiceA>().Use<ComponentA>().Named("A");
c.For<IServiceB>().Use<ComponentB>().Named("B");
});
var b = container.GetInstance<IServiceB>();
// both Fail:
Debug.Assert(((ComponentB)b).Name == "B");
Debug.Assert(((ComponentA)((ComponentB)b).ServiceA).Name == "A");
}
}
}
The above obviously does not work, I tried several variations but had no luck. The registered name of the target object does not seem to be consistently reachable via IContext.
My second best approach would be to define a new "NamedComponent(...)" extension method that resolves to Named(name).WithProperty(x => x.Name).EqualTo(name), but I wonder if this can be avoided to keep component registration as "structuremap-like" as possible?
Am I missing something?
I've never used WithProperty before but if it works the way I'd expect it should do the trick for you.
I think I would favor using EnrichWith though. Something like:
c.For<IFoo>().Use<Foo>().Named(name).EnrichWith(f => f.Name = name);
EnrichWith is a bit more explicit about what it's doing IMO, and lets you call any code on your instance before returning it to the caller. I like that this lets you do a straightforward assignment as well.
There is also a more complex handler you can use with EnrichWith that gives access to the context of the request - this would allow you to do something like this:
c.For<IFoo>().Use<Foo>().Named(name)
.EnrichWith((c, i) => {
i.Name = c.RequestedName;
return i;
});
This may be overkill for your situation but the contextual awareness can be pretty useful.
I have a command class that needs to have 2 constructors. However,
using structuremap it seems that I can only specify one constructor to
be used. I have solved the problem for now by subtyping the specific
command class, which each implementation implementing it's own
interface and constructor. Like the code below shows. The
ISelectCommand implements two separate interfaces for the
string constructor and the int constructor, just for the sake of
registering the two subtypes using structuremap.
However, I consider this a hack and I just wonder why is it not
possible for structuremap to resolve the constructor signature by the
type passed in as parameter for the constructor? Then I could register
the SelectProductCommand as an ISelectCommand and
instantiate it like:
ObjectFactury.With(10).Use>();
orObjectFactury.With("testproduct").Use>();
public class SelectProductCommand : ISelectCommand<IProduct>,
ICommand, IExecutable
{
private readonly Func<Product, Boolean> _selector;
private IEnumerable<IProduct> _resultList;
public SelectProductCommand(Func<Product, Boolean> selector)
{
_selector = selector;
}
public IEnumerable<IProduct> Result
{
get { return _resultList; }
}
public void Execute(GenFormDataContext context)
{
_resultList = GetProductRepository().Fetch(context,
_selector);
}
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct,
Product>>();
}
}
public class SelectProductIntCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductIntCommand(Int32 id): base(x =>
x.ProductId == id) {}
}
public class SelectProductStringCommand: SelectProductCommand
{
public SelectProductStringCommand(String name): base(x =>
x.ProductName.Contains(name)) {}
}
P.s. I know how to tell structuremap what constructor map to use, but my again my question is if there is a way to have structuremap select the right constructor based on the parameter passed to the constructor (i.e. using regular method overloading).
The short answer is this post by the creator of Structuremap.
The long answer is regarding the structure you have in that piece of code. In my view, a command is by definition a "class" that does something to an "entity", i.e it modifies the class somehow. Think CreateNewProductCommand.
Here you are using commands for querying, if I'm not mistaken. You also have a bit of a separation of concern issue floating around here. The command posted defines what to do and how to do it, which is to much and you get that kind of Service location you're using in
private Repository<IProduct, Product> GetProductRepository()
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Repository<IProduct, Product>>();
}
The way I'd structure commands is to use CreateProductCommand as a data contract, i.e it only contains data such as product information.
Then you have a CreateProductCommandHandler which implements IHandles<CreateProductCommand> with a single method Handle or Execute. That way you get better separation of concern and testability.
As for the querying part, just use your repositores directly in your controller/presenter, alternatively use the Query Object pattern
I think I solved the problem using a small utility class. This class gets the concrete type from ObjectFactory and uses this type to construct the instance according to the parameters past into the factory method. Now on the 'client' side I use ObjectFactory to create an instance of CommandFactory. The implementation of CommandFactory is in another solution and thus the 'client solution' remains independent of the 'server' solution.
public class CommandFactory
{
public ICommand Create<T>()
{
return Create<T>(new object[] {});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object arg1, object arg2, object arg3)
{
return Create<T>(new[] {arg1, arg2, arg3});
}
public ICommand Create<T>(object[] arguments)
{
return (ICommand)Activator.CreateInstance(GetRegisteredType<T>(), arguments);
}
public static Type GetRegisteredType<T>()
{
return ObjectFactory.Model.DefaultTypeFor(typeof (T));
}
}
I using StructureMap to create instances of ModuleData
I have many classes that inherit from ModuleData(class A,B,C...) and each of them get Config1 or Config2 in coustructor
In Registry(located in file1.cs) I scan all types of ModuleData.
In Get(lacated in file2.cs) I get the instance.
I want that when ObjectFactory creates Config1/Config2 while creating instance of ModuleData it will pass "param" to Config1/Config2 constructors.
How I can configure structuremap to do this?
P.S. Registry & Get methods are located in different files!!!
Thank you
public class Config1
{
Config1(string param)
{
}
}
public class Config2
{
Config2(string param)
{
}
}
//.....//
public class A : ModuleData
{
A(Config1 c)
{
}
}
public class B : ModuleData
{
A(Config2 c)
{
}
}
//....//
//located in file1.cs
public Registry()
{
Scan(x =>
{
x.TheCallingAssembly();
x.AddAllTypesOf<ModuleData>();
});
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.For<Config1>().Use<Config1>();
x.For<Config2>().Use<Config2>();
});
}
//....//
//located in file2.cs
public ModuleData Get(object o)
{
var module = o as PageModule;
var t = Type.GetType(string.Format("{0}.{1},{2}", Settings.Namespace, module.Name, Settings.Assembly));
return ObjectFactory.With("param").EqualTo(module.Parameters).GetInstance(t) as ModuleData;
}
I can't think of a good way to do what you want, I think its a bit of a design problem... I think you would have to explain a bit more about why you need to do this for me to help you.
What is a page module? Why is your config objects dependent on it?
Based on your comment, I think what you need is a factory object that creates ModuleData objects for you. Since they are objects it does not make much sense to get them from the container. Think about using a data access technology like Entity Framework, it would not make sense to get those objects from the container. From what I can tell, this is a similar case.
Lets discuss one thing:
I have some simple interface:
public interface ICar
{
void StartEngine();
void StopEngine();
}
public interface IRadio
{
//doesn't matter
}
and some implementation:
public class SportCar : ICar
{
private IRadio radio;
public SportCar(IRadio radioObj)
{
radio = radioObj;
}
//all the rest goes here
}
also we have our StructureMap initialization code, and we calling it on Program initialization:
private void InitializeStructureMap()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x=>
{
x.For<ICar>.Use<SportCar>();
x.For<IRadio>.Use<CarAudioSystem>();
});
}
And my question is: what is the best practice to instantiate SportCar? Is calling:
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<ICar>()
a good practice (now I don't now other way to resolve this)?
ObjectFactory.GetInstance is your starting point, that is what you use to resolve the first object in the hierarcy.
This is how i start my WinForms applications, the same technique should apply to WebForms, Windows Services and Console Applications:
var main = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Main>();
Application.Run(main);
For ASP.NET MVC the framework allows you to register a factory that creates your controllers, but even in that factory you would call ObjectFactory.GetInstance to instanciate your controller.
As a side note:
When you do initialization, you don't explicitly need to map ICar to SportCar unless you have multiple ICar implementations, you can just do
x.Scan(a => { a.TheCallingAssembly(); a.WithDefaultConventions(); });
which wil map your interfaces with default implementations.
How do I handle classes with static methods with Ninject?
That is, in C# one can not have static methods in an interface, and Ninject works on the basis of using interfaces?
My use case is a class that I would like it to have a static method to create an
unpopulated instance of itself.
EDIT 1
Just to add an example in the TopologyImp class, in the GetRootNodes() method, how would I create some iNode classes to return? Would I construct these with normal code practice or would I somehow use Ninject? But if I use the container to create then haven't I given this library knowledge of the IOC then?
public interface ITopology
{
List<INode> GetRootNodes();
}
public class TopologyImp : ITopology
{
public List<INode> GetRootNodes()
{
List<INode> result = new List<INode>();
// Need code here to create some instances, but how to without knowledge of the container?
// e.g. want to create a few INode instances and add them to the list and then return the list
}
}
public interface INode
{
// Parameters
long Id { get; set; }
string Name { get; set; }
}
class NodeImp : INode
{
public long Id
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public string Name
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
// Just background to highlight the fact I'm using Ninject fine to inject ITopology
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ITopology _top;
public Form1()
{
IKernel kernal = new StandardKernel(new TopologyModule());
_top = kernal.Get<ITopology>();
InitializeComponent();
}
}
If you're building a singleton or something of that nature and trying to inject dependencies, typically you instead write your code as a normal class, without trying to put in lots of (probably incorrect) code managing the singleton and instead register the object InSingletonScope (v2 - you didnt mention your Ninject version). Each time you do that, you have one less class that doesnt surface its dependencies.
If you're feeling especially bloody-minded and are certain that you want to go against that general flow, the main tools Ninject gives you is Kernel.Inject, which one can use after you (or someone else) has newd up an instance to inject the dependencies. But then to locate one's Kernelm you're typically going to be using a Service Locator, which is likely to cause as much of a mess as it is likely to solve.
EDIT: Thanks for following up - I see what you're after. Here's a hacky way to approximate the autofac automatic factory mechanism :-
/// <summary>
/// Ugly example of a not-very-automatic factory in Ninject
/// </summary>
class AutomaticFactoriesInNinject
{
class Node
{
}
class NodeFactory
{
public NodeFactory( Func<Node> createNode )
{
_createNode = createNode;
}
Func<Node> _createNode;
public Node GenerateTree()
{
return _createNode();
}
}
internal class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<Func<Node>>().ToMethod( context => () => Kernel.Get<Node>() );
}
}
[Fact]
public void CanGenerate()
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel( new Module() );
var result = kernel.Get<NodeFactory>().GenerateTree();
Assert.IsType<Node>( result );
}
}
The ToMethod stuff is a specific application of the ToProvider pattern -- here's how you'd do the same thing via that route:-
...
class NodeProvider : IProvider
{
public Type Type
{
get { return typeof(Node); }
}
public object Create( IContext context )
{
return context.Kernel.Get<Node>();
}
}
internal class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<Func<Node>>().ToProvider<NodeProvider>();
}
}
...
I have not thought this through though and am not recommending this as A Good Idea - there may be far better ways of structuring something like this. #Mark Seemann? :P
I believe Unity and MEF also support things in this direction (keywords: automatic factory, Func)
EDIT 2: Shorter syntax if you're willing to use container-specific attributes and drop to property injection (even if Ninject allows you to override the specific attributes, I much prefer constructor injection):
class NodeFactory
{
[Inject]
public Func<Node> NodeFactory { private get; set; }
public Node GenerateTree()
{
return NodeFactory();
}
}
EDIT 3: You also need to be aware of this Ninject Module by #Remo Gloor which is slated to be in the 2.4 release
EDIT 4: Also overlapping, but not directly relevant is the fact that in Ninject, you can request an IKernel in your ctor/properties and have that injected (but that doesn't work directly in a static method).