I have to consume two different REST API providers about VoIP. Both API do the same with different endpoints and parameters. I'm modeling classes as strategy pattern and the problem that i have encountered is the parameters of each method strategy because are different.
public interface VoIPRequests
{
string ApiKey { get; set; }
string GetExtensionsList();
string TriggerCall();
string DropCall();
string RedirectCall();
}
How can i change parameters for each of this methods depend on the implementation?.
It's good idea use strategy pattern for this case?
There is another pattern that suits better?
Thank you.
Per comment thread:
TriggerCall(), one api only needs one parameter "To" , and other api has two mandatory parameters "extension" and "destination"
I'll focus on TriggerCall, then, and let you extrapolate from there.
Implementation 1
public class VoIPRequests1 : VoIPRequests
{
private readonly object to; // Give this a more appropriate type
public VoIPRequests1(object to)
{
this.to = to;
}
public string TriggerCall()
{
// Use this.to here and return string;
}
// Other interface members go here...
}
Implementation 2
public class VoIPRequests2 : VoIPRequests
{
private readonly object extension; // Give this a more appropriate type
private readonly object destination; // Give this a more appropriate type
public VoIPRequests2(object extension, object destination)
{
this.extension = extension;
this.destination = destination;
}
public string TriggerCall()
{
// Use this.extension and this.destination here and return string;
}
// Other interface members go here...
}
Related
Which is the better way to carry request data(Is there any difference between two way)?
For example:
Option 1(Scoped Service):
//Scoped Service(this may be interface)
public class SampleScopedService
{
public string Data { get; set; }
}
//Register service
services.AddScoped<SampleScopedService>();
//Set and Get Data
public class SampleUsage
{
private readonly SampleScopedService _sampleScopedService;
public SampleUsage(SampleScopedService sampleScopedService)
{
_sampleScopedService = sampleScopedService;
// _sampleScopedService.Data = "Sample";
// _sampleScopedService.Data
}
}
Option 2(HttpContext.Items)
//Scoped Service
public class SampleScopedService
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor _accessor;
public SampleScopedService(IHttpContextAccessor accessor)
{
_accessor = accessor;
}
public string GetData()
{
return (string)_accessor.HttpContext.Items["Data"];
}
}
//Register service
services.AddScoped<SampleScopedService>();
//Set Data
HttpContext.Items[“Data”] = ”Sample”;
//Get Data
public class SampleUsage
{
private readonly SampleScopedService _sampleScopedService;
public SampleUsage(SampleScopedService sampleScopedService)
{
_sampleScopedService = sampleScopedService;
//_sampleScopedService.GetData();
}
}
According to docs:
Avoid storing data and configuration directly in DI. For example, a
user’s shopping cart shouldn’t typically be added to the services
container. Configuration should use the Options Model. Similarly,
avoid “data holder” objects that only exist to allow access to some
other object. It’s better to request the actual item needed via DI, if
possible.
Since Options 1 is example of “data holder”, as far as possible we should avoid it.
Furthermore, Options 1 may cause Captive Dependency if you don't pay attention.
So using Option 2 with singleton lifetime is better way than using Option 1.
I have spent the last day trying to work out which pattern best fits my specific scenario and I have been tossing up between the State Pattern & Strategy pattern. When I read examples on the Internet it makes perfect sense... but it's another skill trying to actually apply it to your own problem. I will describe my scenario and the problem I am facing and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction.
Problem: I have a base object that has different synchronization states: i.e. Latest, Old, Never Published, Unpublished etc. Now depending on what state the object is in the behaviour is different, for example you cannot get the latest version for a base object that has never been published. At this point it seems the State design pattern is best suited... so I have implemented it and now each state has methods such as CanGetLatestVersion, GetLatestVersion, CanPublish, Publish etc.
It all seems good at this point. But lets say you have 10 different child objects that derive from the base class... my solution is broken because when the "publish" method is executed for each state it needs properties in the child object to actually carry out the operation but each state only has a reference to the base object. I have just spent some time creating a sample project illustrating my problem in C#.
public class BaseDocument
{
private IDocumentState _documentState;
public BaseDocument(IDocumentState documentState)
{
_documentState = documentState;
}
public bool CanGetLatestVersion()
{
return _documentState.CanGetLatestVersion(this);
}
public void GetLatestVersion()
{
if(CanGetLatestVersion())
_documentState.CanGetLatestVersion(this);
}
public bool CanPublish()
{
return _documentState.CanPublish(this);
}
public void Publish()
{
if (CanPublish())
_documentState.Publish(this);
}
internal void Change(IDocumentState documentState)
{
_documentState = documentState;
}
}
public class DocumentSubtype1 : BaseDocument
{
public string NeedThisData { get; set; }
}
public class DocumentSubtype2 : BaseDocument
{
public string NeedThisData1 { get; set; }
public string NeedThisData2 { get; set; }
}
public interface IDocumentState
{
bool CanGetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument);
void GetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument);
bool CanPublish(BaseDocument baseDocument);
bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument);
SynchronizationStatus Status { get; set; }
}
public class LatestState : IDocumentState
{
public bool CanGetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
return false;
}
public void GetLatestVersion(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
throw new Exception();
}
public bool CanPublish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
return true;
}
public bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
//ISSUE HERE... I need to access the properties in the the DocumentSubtype1 or DocumentSubType2 class.
}
public SynchronizationStatus Status
{
get
{
return SynchronizationStatus.LatestState;
}
}
}
public enum SynchronizationStatus
{
NeverPublishedState,
LatestState,
OldState,
UnpublishedChangesState,
NoSynchronizationState
}
I then thought about implementing the state for each child object... which would work but I would need to create 50 classes i.e. (10 children x 5 different states) and that just seems absolute crazy... hence why I am here !
Any help would be greatly appreciated. If it is confusing please let me know so I can clarify!
Cheers
Let's rethink this, entirely.
1) You have a local 'Handle', to some data which you don't really own. (Some of it is stored, or published, elsewhere).
2) Maybe the Handle, is what we called the 'State' before -- a simple common API, without the implementation details.
3) Rather than 'CanPublish', 'GetLatestVersion' delegating from the BaseDocument to State -- it sounds like the Handle should delegate, to the specific DocumentStorage implementation.
4) When representing external States or Storage Locations, use of a separate object is ideal for encapsulating the New/Existent/Deletion state & identifier, in that storage location.
5) I'm not sure if 'Versions' is part of 'Published Location'; or if they're two independent storage locations. Our handle needs a 'Storage State' representation for each independent location, which it will store to/from.
For example:
Handle
- has 1 LocalCopy with states (LOADED, NOT_LOADED)
- has 1 PublicationLocation with Remote URL and states (NEW, EXIST, UPDATE, DELETE)
Handle.getVersions() then delegates to PublicationLocation.
Handle.getCurrent() loads a LocalCopy (cached), from PublicationLocation.
Handle.setCurrent() sets a LocalCopy and sets Publication state to UPDATE.
(or executes the update immediately, whichever.)
Remote Storage Locations/ Transports can be subtyped for different methods of accessing, or LocalCopy/ Document can be subtyped for different types of content.
THIS, I AM PRETTY SURE, IS THE MORE CORRECT SOLUTION.
[Previously] Keep 'State' somewhat separate from your 'Document' object (let's call it Document, since we need to call it something -- and you didn't specify.)
Build your heirarchy from BaseDocument down, have a BaseDocument.State member, and create the State objects with a reference to their Document instance -- so they have access to & can work with the details.
Essentially:
BaseDocument <--friend--> State
Document subtypes inherit from BaseDocument.
protected methods & members in Document heirarchy, enable State to do whatever it needs to.
Hope this helps.
Many design patterns can be used to this kind of architecture problem. It is unfortunate that you do not give the example of how you do the publish. However, I will state some of the good designs:
Put the additional parameters to the base document and make it
nullable. If not used in a document, then it is null. Otherwise, it
has value. You won't need inheritance here.
Do not put the Publish method to the DocumentState, put in the
BaseDocument instead. Logically, the Publish method must be part
of BaseDocument instead of the DocumentState.
Let other service class to handle the Publishing (publisher
service). You can achieve it by using abstract factory pattern. This
way, you need to create 1:1 document : publisher object. It may be
much, but you has a freedom to modify each document's publisher.
public interface IPublisher<T> where T : BaseDocument
{
bool Publish(T document);
}
public interface IPublisherFactory
{
bool Publish(BaseDocument document);
}
public class PublisherFactory : IPublisherFactory
{
public PublisherFactory(
IPublisher<BaseDocument> basePublisher
, IPublisher<SubDocument1> sub1Publisher)
{
this.sub1Publisher = sub1Publisher;
this.basePublisher = basePublisher;
}
IPublisher<BaseDocument> basePublisher;
IPublisher<SubDocument1> sub1Publisher;
public bool Publish(BaseDocument document)
{
if(document is SubDocument1)
{
return sub1Publisher.Publish((SubDocument1)document);
}
else if (document is BaseDocument)
{
return basePublisher.Publish(document);
}
return false;
}
}
public class LatestState : IDocumentState
{
public LatestState(IPublisherFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
IPublisherFactory factory;
public bool Publish(BaseDocument baseDocument)
{
factory.Publish(baseDocument);
}
}
Use Composition over inheritance. You design each interface to each state, then compose it in the document. In summary, you can has 5 CanGetLatestVersion and other composition class, but 10 publisher composition class.
More advancedly and based on the repository you use, maybe you can use Visitor pattern. This way, you can has a freedom to modify each publishing methods. It is similiar to my point 3, except it being declared in one class. For example:
public class BaseDocument
{
}
public class SubDocument1 : BaseDocument
{
}
public class DocumentPublisher
{
public void Publish(BaseDocument document)
{
}
public void Publish(SubDocument1 document)
{
// do the prerequisite
Publish((BaseDocument)document);
// do the postrequisite
}
}
There may be other designs available but it is dependent to how you access your repository.
C# on .NET 4.5:
public Interface IMyInterface
{
public string DoSomething( string input1 )
}
public MyClass1 : IMyInterface
{
public string DoSomething( string input1 )
{
return "1";
}
}
public MyClass2 : IMyInterface
{
public string DoSomething( string input1 )
{
return "2";
}
}
At runtime, I want to detect the hosting environment, set some kind of "global", and then based on the global always instance and use MyClass1 or MyClass2. I do not want to have a single "MyClass" and then do lots of case logic inside it to detect the environment.
What is a good pattern or practice to do that? Is this actually a good place for Dynamics?
Thanks.
Seems like you need to use Factory. Create a method in Factory class to return MyClass object. Keep the return type of the method as IMyInterface. Within the method, you can execute your hosting logic and depending upon the output of hosting logic, instantiate proper class and return the reference to the object.
I think this falls under the concept of contextual binding, but the Ninject documentation, while very thorough, does not have any examples close enough to my current situation for me to really be certain. I'm still pretty confused.
I basically have classes that represent parameter structures for queries. For instance..
class CurrentUser {
string Email { get; set; }
}
And then an interface that represents its database retrieval (in the data layer)
class CurrentUserQuery : IQueryFor<CurrentUser> {
public CurrentUserQuery(ISession session) {
this.session = session;
}
public Member ExecuteQuery(CurrentUser parameters) {
var member = session.Query<Member>().Where(n => n.Email == CurrentUser.Email);
// validation logic
return member;
}
}
Now then, what I want to do is to establish a simple class that can take a given object and from it get the IQueryFor<T> class, construct it from my Ninject.IKernel (constructor parameter), and perform the ExecuteQuery method on it, passing through the given object.
The only way I have been able to do this was to basically do the following...
Bind<IQueryFor<CurrentUser>>().To<CurrentUserQuery>();
This solves the problem for that one query. But I anticipate there will be a great number of queries... so this method will become not only tedious, but also very prone to redundancy.
I was wondering if there is an inherit way in Ninject to incorporate this kind of behavior.
:-
In the end, my (ideal) way of using this would be ...
class HomeController : Controller {
public HomeController(ITransit transit) {
// injection of the transit service
}
public ActionResult CurrentMember() {
var member = transit.Send(new CurrentUser{ Email = User.Identity.Name });
}
}
Obviously that's not going to work right, since the Send method has no way of knowing the return type.
I've been dissecting Rhino Service Bus extensively and project Alexandria to try and make my light, light, lightweight implementation.
Update
I have been able to get a fairly desired result using .NET 4.0 dynamic objects, such as the following...
dynamic Send<T>(object message);
And then declaring my interface...
public interface IQueryFor<T,K>
{
K Execute(T message);
}
And then its use ...
public class TestCurrentMember
{
public string Email { get; set; }
}
public class TestCurrentMemberQuery : IConsumerFor<TestCurrentMember, Member>
{
private readonly ISession session;
public TestCurrentMemberQuery(ISession session) {
this.session = session;
}
public Member Execute(TestCurrentMember user)
{
// query the session for the current member
var member = session.Query<Member>()
.Where(n => n.Email == user.Email).SingleOrDefault();
return member;
}
}
And then in my Controller...
var member = Transit.Send<TestCurrentMemberQuery>(
new TestCurrentMember {
Email = User.Identity.Name
}
);
effectively using the <T> as my 'Hey, This is what implements the query parameters!'. It does work, but I feel pretty uncomfortable with it. Is this an inappropriate use of the dynamic function of .NET 4.0? Or is this more the reason why it exists in the first place?
Update (2)
For the sake of consistency and keeping this post relative to just the initial question, I'm opening up a different question for the dynamic issue.
Yes, you should be able to handle this with Ninject Conventions. I am just learning the Conventions part of Ninject, and the documentation is sparse; however, the source code for the Conventions extension is quite light and easy to read/navigate, also Remo Gloor is very helpful both here and on the mailing list.
The first thing I would try is a GenericBindingGenerator (changing the filters and scope as needed for your application):
internal class YourModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Kernel.Scan(a => {
a.From(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
a.InTransientScope();
a.BindWith(new GenericBindingGenerator(typeof(IQueryFor<>)));
});
}
}
The heart of any BindingGenerator is this interface:
public interface IBindingGenerator
{
void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel);
}
The Default Binding Generator simply checks if the name of the class matches the name of the interface:
public void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel)
{
if (!type.IsInterface && !type.IsAbstract)
{
Type service = type.GetInterface("I" + type.Name, false);
if (service != null)
{
kernel.Bind(service).To(type).InScope(scopeCallback);
}
}
}
The GenericBindingGenerator takes a type as a constructor argument, and checks interfaces on classes scanned to see if the Generic definitions of those interfaces match the type passed into the constructor:
public GenericBindingGenerator(Type contractType)
{
if (!contractType.IsGenericType && !contractType.ContainsGenericParameters)
{
throw new ArgumentException("The contract must be an open generic type.", "contractType");
}
this._contractType = contractType;
}
public void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel)
{
Type service = this.ResolveClosingInterface(type);
if (service != null)
{
kernel.Bind(service).To(type).InScope(scopeCallback);
}
}
public Type ResolveClosingInterface(Type targetType)
{
if (!targetType.IsInterface && !targetType.IsAbstract)
{
do
{
foreach (Type type in targetType.GetInterfaces())
{
if (type.IsGenericType && (type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == this._contractType))
{
return type;
}
}
targetType = targetType.BaseType;
}
while (targetType != TypeOfObject);
}
return null;
}
So, when the Conventions extension scans the class CurrentUserQuery it will see the interface IQueryFor<CurrentUser>. The generic definition of that interface is IQueryFor<>, so it will match and that type should get registered for that interface.
Lastly, there is a RegexBindingGenerator. It tries to match interfaces of the classes scanned to a Regex given as a constructor argument. If you want to see the details of how that operates, you should be able to peruse the source code for it now.
Also, you should be able to write any implementation of IBindingGenerator that you may need, as the contract is quite simple.
While my service executes, many classes will need to access User.Current (that is my own User class). Can I safely store _currentUser in a [ThreadStatic] variable? Does WCF reuse its threads? If that is the case, when will it clean-up the ThreadStatic data? If using ThreadStatic is not safe, where should I put that data? Is there a place inside OperationContext.Current where I can store that kind of data?
Edit 12/14/2009: I can assert that using a ThreadStatic variable is not safe. WCF threads are in a thread pool and the ThreadStatic variable are never reinitialized.
There's a blog post which suggests implementing an IExtension<T>. You may also take a look at this discussion.
Here's a suggested implementation:
public class WcfOperationContext : IExtension<OperationContext>
{
private readonly IDictionary<string, object> items;
private WcfOperationContext()
{
items = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
public IDictionary<string, object> Items
{
get { return items; }
}
public static WcfOperationContext Current
{
get
{
WcfOperationContext context = OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Find<WcfOperationContext>();
if (context == null)
{
context = new WcfOperationContext();
OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Add(context);
}
return context;
}
}
public void Attach(OperationContext owner) { }
public void Detach(OperationContext owner) { }
}
Which you could use like that:
WcfOperationContext.Current.Items["user"] = _currentUser;
var user = WcfOperationContext.Current.Items["user"] as MyUser;
An alternative solution without adding extra drived class.
OperationContext operationContext = OperationContext.Current;
operationContext.IncomingMessageProperties.Add("SessionKey", "ABCDEFG");
To get the value
var ccc = aaa.IncomingMessageProperties["SessionKey"];
That's it
I found that we miss the data or current context when we make async call with multiple thread switching. To handle such scenario you can try to use CallContext. It's supposed to be used in .NET remoting but it should also work in such scenario.
Set the data in the CallContext:
DataObject data = new DataObject() { RequestId = "1234" };
CallContext.SetData("DataSet", data);
Retrieving shared data from the CallContext:
var data = CallContext.GetData("DataSet") as DataObject;
// Shared data object has to implement ILogicalThreadAffinative
public class DataObject : ILogicalThreadAffinative
{
public string Message { get; set; }
public string Status { get; set; }
}
Why ILogicalThreadAffinative ?
When a remote method call is made to an object in another AppDomain,the current CallContext class generates a LogicalCallContext that travels along with the call to the remote location.
Only objects that expose the ILogicalThreadAffinative interface and are stored in the CallContext are propagated outside the AppDomain.