As far as I can tell, the Expando class in Kephas allows adding new members on the fly. Unlike the ExpandoObject in .NET, I noticed it is not sealed, so I could change its behavior, but I don't really know how.
[EDITED]
My scenario is to make the expando readonly at a certain time.
Try this snippet:
public class ReadOnlyExpando : Expando
{
private bool isReadOnly;
public ReadOnlyExpando()
{
}
public ReadOnlyExpando(IDictionary<string, object> dictionary)
: base(dictionary)
{
}
public void MakeReadOnly()
{
this.isReadOnly = true;
}
protected override bool TrySetValue(string key, object value)
{
if (this.isReadOnly)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("This object is read only").
}
return base.TrySetValue(key, value);
}
}
For other scenarios you may want to check the LazyExpando class, which provides a way to resolve dynamic values based on a function, also handling circular references exception.
Related
I've created this code:
public class AddonsModule : Ninject.Modules.NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
this.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon))
.BindWith(new AddonBindingGenerator())
);
}
private class AddonBindingGenerator : IBindingGenerator
{
public System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<Ninject.Syntax.IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>> CreateBindings(System.Type type, Ninject.Syntax.IBindingRoot bindingRoot)
{
if (type.IsInterface || type.IsAbstract)
yield break;
yield return bindingRoot.Bind(type).ToProvider(typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon));
}
}
private class AddonProvider : IProvider<UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon>
{
public object Create(IContext context)
{
return null;
}
public Type Type
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
}
AddonProvider seems be avoided. This is never performed.
When I perform:
kernel.GetAll<UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon>(), AddonProvider.Create method is never performed.
Could you tell me what's wrong?
I'll appreciate a lot your help.
Thanks for all.
AddOnProvider is inheriting from IProvider<T> instead of UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon.
also, you may have issues binding to private inner classes. make AddOnProvider a public top level class.
You're binding a specific type which inherits from typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon) to a provider. For example, there could be a class Foo : UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon.
Now your convention binding translates to this:
Bind<Foo>().ToProvider<AddonProvider>();
Now, kernel.GetAll<UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon>() however is looking for bindings made like:
Bind<UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon>().To...
Fix It
So what you need to do is change the line
bindingRoot.Bind(type).ToProvider(new AddonProvider());
to:
bindingRoot.Bind(typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon)).ToProvider<AddonProvider>();
Furthermore
you're line object f = bindingRoot.Bind(type).ToProvider(new AddonProvider()); is never returning the binding (object f).
does UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon implement IProvider?
Thanks for your answer and comments.
I believe the trouble is on I'm not quite figuring out how this "generic" binding process works.
I'm going to try writing my brain steps process out:
I need to bind every AbstractAddon implementation inside addons assemblies folder. So, I think this code is right, but I'm not sure at all.
this.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon))
.BindWith(new AddonBindingGenerator())
);
My AbstractAddon is like:
public abstract class AbstractAddon : IAddon
{
private object configuration;
public AbstractAddon(object configuration)
{
this.configuration = configuration;
}
// IAddon interface
public abstract string PluginId { get; }
public abstract string PluginVersion { get; }
public abstract string getCaption(string key);
public abstract Type getConfigurationPanelType();
public abstract System.Windows.Forms.UserControl createConfigurationPanel();
}
I guess I need to:
foreach implementation of `AbstractAddon` found out,
I need to "inject" a configuration object ->
So, I guess I need to set a provider and provide this configuration object.
This would be my main way of thinking in order to solve this problem.
I've changed a bit my first approach. Instead of using a IBindingGenerator class, I've used the next:
public class AddonsModule : Ninject.Modules.NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
this.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(UIExtensibility.AbstractAddon))
.BindAllBaseClasses()
.Configure(c => c.InSingletonScope())
);
this.Bind<object>().ToProvider<ConfigurationProvider>()
.WhenTargetHas<UIExtensibility.ConfigurationAttribute>();
}
So, My ConfigurationProvider is:
private class ConfigurationProvider : IProvider<object>
{
public object Create(IContext context)
{
return "configuration settings";
}
}
And now, my AbstractAddon constructor contains the parameter annotated with ConfigurationAttribute as:
public AbstractAddon([Configuration]object configuration)
{
this.configuration = configuration;
}
The problem now, NInject seems to ignore the configuration object provider. NInject generates a dump object, however, not perform ConfigurationProvider.Create method...
What I'm doing wrong, now?
Is this approach really better than the last one?
Thanks for all.
I've seen multiple examples of DelegateCommands being created in either the constructor or within the property itself. I'm wondering if there is any advantage of doing it in the constructor as I've been doing it within the property to keep track of it easier.
(Using Prism, Silverlight4 and SimpleMVVM Toolkit in my case)
private DelegateCommand _cmdLogin;
public DelegateCommand CmdLogin
{
get
{
if (_cmdLogin == null)
{
_cmdLogin = new DelegateCommand(this.Login, this.CanLogIn);
}
return _cmdLogin;
}
}
VS
public LoginViewModel()
{
this.LoginCommand = new DelegateCommand(this.Login, this.CanLogin);
}
public DelegateCommand LoginCommand { get; set; }
I have had the same thought as you Suiko6272 on this.
I ended up going with your second solution in the end. however i did use this mechanism in my property gets for quite a while
private DelegateCommand _cmdLogin;
public DelegateCommand CmdLogin
{
get { return _cmdLogin??(_cmdLogin = new DelegateCommand(this.Login, this.CanLogIn));}
}
The above code lazy loads the delegatecommand and is only 1 line of code.
I ended up going with your second solution because it is the clearest/easiest for other coders to read.
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.
I am trying to use Ninject to implement cascading injection into a class that contains an IList field. It seems that, unless I specifically specify each binding to use in the kernel.Get method, the IList property is always injected with a list of a single default object.
The following VSTest code illustrates the problem. The first test fails because the IList field contains one MyType object with Name=null. The second test passes, but I had to specifically tell Ninject what constructor arguments to use. I am using the latest build from the ninject.web.mvc project for MVC 3.
Does Ninject specifically treat IList different, or is there a better way to handle this? Note that this seems to only be a problem when using an IList. Createing a custom collection object that wraps IList works as expected in the first test.
[TestClass()]
public class NinjectTest
{
[TestMethod()]
public void ListTest_Fails_NameNullAndCountIncorrect()
{
var kernel = new Ninject.StandardKernel(new MyNinjectModule());
var target = kernel.Get<MyModel>();
var actual = target.GetList();
// Fails. Returned value is set to a list of a single object equal to default(MyType)
Assert.AreEqual(2, actual.Count());
// Fails because MyType object is initialized with a null "Name" property
Assert.AreEqual("Fred", actual.First().Name);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void ListTest_Passes_SeemsLikeUnnecessaryConfiguration()
{
var kernel = new Ninject.StandardKernel(new MyNinjectModule());
var target = kernel.Get<MyModel>(new ConstructorArgument("myGenericObject", kernel.Get<IGenericObject<MyType>>(new ConstructorArgument("myList", kernel.Get<IList<MyType>>()))));
var actual = target.GetList();
Assert.AreEqual(2, actual.Count());
Assert.AreEqual("Fred", actual.First().Name);
}
}
public class MyNinjectModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IList<MyType>>().ToConstant(new List<MyType> { new MyType { Name = "Fred" }, new MyType { Name = "Bob" } });
Bind<IGenericObject<MyType>>().To<StubObject<MyType>>();
}
}
public class MyModel
{
private IGenericObject<MyType> myGenericObject;
public MyModel(IGenericObject<MyType> myGenericObject)
{
this.myGenericObject = myGenericObject;
}
public IEnumerable<MyType> GetList()
{
return myGenericObject.GetList();
}
}
public interface IGenericObject<T>
{
IList<T> GetList();
}
public class StubObject<T> : IGenericObject<T>
{
private IList<T> _myList;
public StubObject(IList<T> myList)
{
_myList = myList;
}
public IList<T> GetList()
{
return _myList;
}
}
public class MyType
{
public String Name { get; set; }
}
lists, collections and arrays are handled slightly different. For those types ninject will inject a list or array containing an instance of all bindings for the generic type. In your case the implementation type is a class which is aoutobound by default. So the list will contain one instance of that class. If you add an interface to that class and use this one the list will be empty.
I am trying to map my collections with FNHib automapping. The problems that I want to solve are:
1) I want all my collections in the project to be mapped via private field. How can I say that globally?
2) Is there any way to automap bidirectional relationship without explicitly overriding each of my entities.
class OrganizationEntity example:
private ISet<> _collectionWarehouse;
public virtual IEnumerable<WarehouseEntity> CollectionWarehouse
{
get{return _collectionWarehouse; }
set{_collectionWarehouse = new HashedSet<WarehouseEntity>((ICollection<WarehouseEntity>)value)}
}
Class WarehouseEntity example:
public virtual OrganizationEntity Organization{get;set;}
You can map your collections to a private field 'globally' with the following convention:
// assumes camel case underscore field (i.e., _mySet)
public class CollectionAccessConvention : ICollectionConvention
{
public void Apply(ICollectionInstance instance) {
instance.Access.CamelCaseField(CamelCasePrefix.Underscore);
}
}
Whenever you want to set a 'global' automap preference in FNH, think conventions. The you use the IAutoOverride on a given class map if you need to.
As far has the set (a HashSet is usually what I really want also) part, the last time I had to do some mapping, I did need to do an override, like:
public class ActivityBaseMap : IAutoMappingOverride<ActivityBase>
{
public void Override(AutoMapping<ActivityBase> m)
{
...
m.HasMany(x => x.Allocations).AsSet().Inverse();
}
}
I do agree that should translate into a convention though, and maybe you can do that these days. Please post if you figure it out.
HTH,
Berryl
CODE TO USE A HASHSET as an ICollection =================
public virtual ICollection<WarehouseEntity> Wharehouses
{
get { return _warehouses ?? (_warehouses = new HashSet<WarehouseEntity>()); }
set { _warehouses = value; }
}
private ICollection<WarehouseEntity> _warehouses;